Case 3314432/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McCracken v Matt Allman Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314432/2022
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McCracken
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the Respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Graham determined the claim on the papers and recorded that the Respondent had not engaged with the proceedings in time.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £413.26. It also found that the Claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract during his notice period and awarded £413.26 in damages for wrongful dismissal.
In addition, the tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £805.85. It further found that the Respondent had failed to provide a written statement of initial particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £826.52.
The total monetary award recorded by the judgment was £2,458.89.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £413 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £413 |
| Working time regulations | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £806 |
| Other | Award made for failure to provide a written statement of initial particulars under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £827 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,459
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.