Case 1400080/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Foster v Sterling Facilities Management (UK) Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1400080/2025
- Decision date
- 12 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- by CVP from the Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Foster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found Mr Foster's complaint of unfair dismissal not well-founded and dismissed it. It also found his breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay not well-founded and dismissed that complaint.
The Tribunal dismissed as not well-founded Mr Foster's claim under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for compensation for financial loss attributable to an unlawful deduction from wages. Mr Foster accepted that he had been paid all holiday pay due, and that complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award was recorded. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment does not set out further factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint concerned notice pay and was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for compensation for financial loss attributable to an unlawful deduction from wages was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Mr Foster accepted that he had been paid all holiday pay due, and the complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.