Case 6010280/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wood v Tomahawk Aluminium Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6010280/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff by CVP on 25 November 2024 before Employment Judge C Sharp sitting alone. The Claimant, Mr J Wood, appeared in person. The Respondent was debarred, but its director, Mr M Pitt, attended. The judgment records that the Respondent conceded the wage deduction claim and the property-return costs claim in writing and at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deduction from wages between 1 and 14 June 2024. The Respondent conceded the claim in writing and at the hearing. The tribunal awarded this together with the notice pay claim in a combined gross sum of £2,240.97. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay. The tribunal found the Claimant was entitled to two weeks' notice. The award for this claim was included in the combined gross sum of £2,240.97 with the unpaid wages claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued unpaid annual leave. The tribunal found the claim well founded and held that the Claimant was entitled to one day's pay. | Upheld | — | £148 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid costs for the return of the Respondent's property. The Respondent conceded the claim in correspondence and at the hearing. | Upheld | — | £29 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,418
- 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.