Case 1402691/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Gary Withers v Bailey Fabrications Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1402691/2025
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gary Withers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningGary Withers presented the claim against Bailey Fabrications Limited on 12 November 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Withers's wages and awarded £1,438 gross. It also found that he had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £8,628 in damages; that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £21,570; and that his holiday entitlement had not been paid, for which it awarded £1,078.50. The total payable was £32,714.50.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,438 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £8,628 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £21,570 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,079 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £32,715
- 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.