Case 1306320/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) MR IAN RUSSELL (2) MR SCOTT MEREDITH v The Best Connection Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306320/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) MR IAN RUSSELL (2) MR SCOTT MEREDITH
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningTwo claimants, Mr Ian Russell and Mr Scott Meredith, brought claims against The Best Connection Group Limited concerning unpaid holiday pay and a deduction in respect of redundancy payments. The matter was heard at Birmingham (by CVP) on 30 January 2025 before Employment Judge N. Clarke.
The tribunal dismissed the holiday pay claim as unfounded. It upheld the claim that there had been an unlawful deduction in respect of redundancy payments, awarding Mr Russell £1,225.50 and Mr Meredith £1,368.00.
A footnote records that these figures differ from the £1,690 announced at the hearing because the parties agreed in subsequent correspondence with the Tribunal that they had presented incorrect figures.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the claim for unpaid holiday pay unfounded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction in respect of redundancy payments well-founded. Awards: Ian Russell £1,225.50 and Scott Meredith £1,368.00 (combined £2,593.50). The £1,690 figure noted by Layer 1 was the figure announced at hearing but later corrected by agreement of the parties. | Upheld | — | £2,594 |
| Redundancy | The judgment frames the redundancy payment shortfall as an unlawful deduction claim rather than a separate statutory redundancy pay claim; recorded here to reflect the gov.uk listing category but the substantive award is captured under unlawful_deduction_wages. Lower confidence due to short judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,594
- 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.