Case 1402697/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Carol Withers v Bailey Fabrications Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1402697/2025
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Carol Withers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 12 November 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered Bailey Fabrications Limited to pay Carol Withers £170 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £850 damages.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,275. It also upheld the holiday entitlement claim and ordered payment of £170. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,465 in total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £170 gross. | Upheld | — | £170 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards £850 damages. | Upheld | — | £850 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,275. | Upheld | — | £1,275 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £170. | Upheld | — | £170 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,465
- 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.