Case 6012577/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Butterworth v Heanor Specialist Installations Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012577/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Butterworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a remedy judgment issued by Employment Judge M Butler sitting alone at Nottingham on 14 January 2025. The claimant, Mr I Butterworth, appeared in person; the respondent, Heanor Specialist Installations Limited, did not attend.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,133.44 net in respect of those deductions. In respect of the unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation for loss of office of £1,754.83 net together with a basic award of £2,390.28 net.
The total sum the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant is £5,278.55. The PDF supplied contains the remedy judgment only and does not set out reasons, legal tests applied, or findings on the breach of contract or working time claims listed on the gov.uk listing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,133.44 net. | Upheld | — | £1,133 |
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy judgment awards compensation for loss of office (£1,754.83 net) plus a basic award (£2,390.28 net) in respect of the unfair dismissal claim. Liability was presumably determined in an earlier judgment not in this PDF. | Upheld | — | £4,145 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,279
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,390
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,755
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.