Case 1400874/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Warren v Mr Jonathan Bailey — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400874/2022
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Warren
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol via VHS on 30 September 2022 before Employment Judge David Hughes. The claimant, Mr Matthew Warren, appeared in person. The respondent, Mr Jonathan Bailey, did not appear and was not represented. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal struck out Mr Warren's unfair dismissal claim. The written record does not explain the basis on which that claim was struck out. No other finding is recorded in relation to unfair dismissal.
The tribunal upheld Mr Warren's unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered Mr Bailey to pay £350 gross in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice, and awarded £1,915.13 as damages for that breach. The total amount ordered by the tribunal was £2,265.13.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim; the written record does not state the basis for strike-out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unlawful deduction from wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £350. | Upheld | — | £350 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and ordered damages of £1,915.13. | Upheld | — | £1,915 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,265
- 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.