Case 3323199/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Handford v Ms Y Shkop — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323199/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Caiden Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Handford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for automatically unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and failure to provide an amended written statement of particulars. The tribunal dismissed the automatically unfair dismissal complaint under s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed the unlawful deduction of wages complaint.
On wages, the tribunal found the claimant had not shown that the relevant additional time was working time taking him beyond the hours paid. On particulars, the tribunal found there was an agreement that the respondent would pay the claimant's healthcare costs while he was required to comply with the respondent's Covid-19 secure bubble requirements during employment, and that this should have been included in amended particulars.
The tribunal set out the missing term for the written particulars, but held that the claimant was not entitled to financial compensation under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because he had not succeeded in a claim to which Schedule 5 of that Act related.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deduction of wages complaint was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The complaint that the respondent was in breach of the requirement to provide an amended written statement of particulars was well-founded, but no financial compensation was awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.12(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.