Case 3319576/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Matthews v Wisscom Aerospace Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3319576/2019
- Decision date
- 2 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response to the claim, and the tribunal entered judgment for the claimant under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No contested findings of fact are recorded in the judgment; the orders were made on the basis of the respondent's failure to respond.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £8,888.91 gross for unauthorised deduction from wages, £4,219.92 net for breach of contract on dismissal, £165.27 in respect of unpaid expenses, and £1,384.60 gross for holiday pay. The hearing listed for 17 December 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages; awarded £8,888.91 gross. | Upheld | — | £8,889 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract; awarded £4,219.92 net. The judgment also ordered payment of £165.27 in respect of unpaid expenses. | Upheld | — | £4,220 |
| Other | Unpaid expenses; the respondent was ordered to pay £165.27. | Upheld | — | £165 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay; awarded £1,384.60 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,659
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.