Case 6005893/2024 · Employment Tribunal
R Heath v Ares Renewables Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6005893/2024
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
R Heath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge KM Ross found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,434.27 gross, comprising £1,432.72 for underpayment of wages from June 2024 and £1.55 for a banking transaction fee attributable to that underpayment.
The tribunal also found that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £3,716.40 as damages. The total sum payable under the judgment is £5,150.67, and the hearing previously listed for 9 January 2025 was cancelled.
A separate Article 12 notice was issued regarding interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, identifying 3 December 2024 as the relevant decision day, 4 December 2024 as the calculation day, and an 8% per annum stipulated rate of interest applicable if the award is not paid within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages: underpayment of wages from June 2024 of £1,432.72 plus £1.55 banking transaction fee, totalling £1,434.27 (gross). | Upheld | — | £1,434 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in relation to notice found well-founded; damages of £3,716.40 ordered. | Upheld | — | £3,716 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,151
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
- section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838
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.