Case 1402065/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W C Durston v Chris Wagstaff Catering Ltd Heard via: CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402065/2022
- Decision date
- 8 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Frazer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W C Durston
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 27 June 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge A Frazer determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, sitting alone by CVP on 28 October 2022.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £2,000 gross. It also upheld the breach of contract claim arising from dismissal in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,000.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,384.61. The total sum ordered was £4,384.61.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £2,000 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,000 damages. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,384.61. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,385
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.