Case 1401663/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ferguson v Heath Associates Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401663/2024
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ferguson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 17 July 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Livesey decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The judgment was signed on 26 March 2025 and sent to the parties on 16 April 2025.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £7,560.00 gross. It also upheld the claim that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £4,883.15.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,392.34. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £193.05. The total amount payable was £16,028.54.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £7,560.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £7,560 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,883.15. | Upheld | — | £4,883 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,392.34. | Upheld | — | £3,392 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £193.05. | Upheld | — | £193 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,029
- 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.