Case 6001270/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Marcus Crooks v Utilitrack (North East) Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001270/2026
- Decision date
- 14 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Marcus Crooks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Childe decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that Utilitrack (North East) Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Marcus Crooks's wages and ordered payment of £66.65 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £673.10 gross in damages.
The Tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £336.55 gross. The three recorded awards total £1,076.30, and the hearing listed for 18 January 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £67 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £673 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £337 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,076
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.