Case 1402701/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Walker v Bailey Fabrications Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1402701/2025
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 12 November 2025. Bailey Fabrications Limited did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney 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 Paul Walker’s wages and awarded £1,438 gross. It also found that he had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £8,628 in damages, and that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £18,334.59.
The Tribunal further awarded £109.25 for unpaid holiday entitlement and £628.84 for travel expenses that the respondent had not paid in breach of contract. The total amount payable to the claimant was £29,138.68.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 | Award for unpaid travel expenses. | Upheld | — | £629 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £8,628 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £18,335 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £109 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,139
- across all upheld claims
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.