Case 1400515/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Wylie v NewGen Electrical Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400515/2025
- Decision date
- 9 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Wylie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 5 March 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing. The hearing listed for 17 October 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £14,512.28 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, ordering damages of £697.70 and a compensatory award of £3,986.83. The total sum the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant was £19,196.81.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Cadney on 15 August 2025 and sent to the parties on 9 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 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; award stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £14,512 |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment records damages of £697.70 and a separate compensatory award of £3,986.83 attributable to the unfair dismissal claim; combined here as the per-claim amount. Judgment was issued under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £4,685 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,197
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,987
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.