Case 3333198/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bird v Doormatic Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3333198/2018
- Decision date
- 5 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bird
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Reading on 5 August 2019, before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, found that Mr R Bird had been wrongfully dismissed by Doormatic Limited. The written judgment ordered the respondent to pay £581.90 gross. It also stated that if the respondent pays the tax and national insurance due to HMRC, payment of the net amount will meet the judgment debt.
The claimant’s separate complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was not well founded and was dismissed. The written record does not set out detailed reasons for either conclusion because the reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent was ordered to pay £581.90 gross. The judgment states that if the respondent pays the tax and national insurance due to HMRC, payment of the net amount will satisfy the judgment debt. | Upheld | — | £582 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £582
- 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.