Case 1402692/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Barry Motherwell v Bailey Fabrications Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1402692/2025
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Barry Motherwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 12 November 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that Bailey Fabrications Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Barry Motherwell's wages and ordered payment of £1,869.40 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,314.40.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,471. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £71.90. The judgment states that the respondent must pay £12,726.30 in total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment awards this as a gross sum for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,869 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages. | Upheld | — | £4,314 |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £6,471 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a failure to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £72 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,726
- 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.