Case 3320853/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person assisted by his father, Mr K Gray. For the v Mr J Keeble, Yard Manager. — 2020
- Case reference
- 3320853/2019
- Decision date
- 9 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person assisted by his father, Mr K Gray. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Bury St Edmunds on 28 August 2020, Employment Judge Laidler recorded that the respondent, Hunsden Skip Hire Limited, was ordered to pay the claimant, Mr S Gray, £2,030 in respect of wages and accrued holiday pay. The written judgment does not set out separate liability findings beyond that order, and no written reasons were provided because reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
The judgment includes the arithmetic used to reach the award. It states that 21 weekdays were worked at £100 per day, 3 Saturdays were worked for £300, 2 bank holidays were worked for £200, and accrued annual leave was £200, giving a subtotal of £2,800. From that, the tribunal deducted an advance of wages of £700 and a parking fine of £70, leaving a total award of £2,030.
The judge noted that the figure was higher than the claimant had stated at the hearing, where the claimant said £1,830, and explained that this was because the claimant’s schedule of loss had been added up incorrectly. The written record states that £2,030 was the correct award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a single award of £2,030 in respect of wages and accrued holiday pay. It gives a calculation of gross sums, less an advance of wages and a parking fine, but does not split the award between separate claims. | Upheld | — | £2,030 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,030
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.