Case 1402700/2025 · Employment Tribunal
James Spratt v Bailey Fabrications Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1402700/2025
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
James Spratt
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 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 James Spratt's wages and ordered payment of £1,438 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £8,628, and that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £21,570.
The tribunal further found that the respondent was in breach of contract by not paying the claimant's fuel expenses of £89.29. The total sum ordered was £31,725.29. The judgment was approved on 5 May 2026, with the original judgment sent to the parties on 22 May 2026 and an amended judgment sent on 11 June 2026.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records unauthorised deductions from wages and awards £1,438 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,438 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of £8,628. | Upheld | — | £8,628 |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £21,570. | Upheld | — | £21,570 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records breach of contract for non-payment of fuel expenses of £89.29. | Upheld | — | £89 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,725
- 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.