Case 1400504/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Howells v United Care Concepts Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400504/2025
- Decision date
- 1 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Howells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Exeter Employment Tribunal on 3 March 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a determination could properly be made of the claim.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,571.44. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £3,016.25. The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,892.90.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £10,480.59 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Gray on 24 July 2025 and sent to the parties on 1 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £1,571 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,016 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,893 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,481
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.