Case 1403785/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Hill v Adjusted Customs Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403785/2023
- Decision date
- 28 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 20 June 2023, and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,044 gross. It also upheld the claim for breach of contract in relation to notice, awarding £2,320 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £2,610. It also upheld the claim for unpaid holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £522. The judgment records a total sum payable of £6,496.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and awarded £1,044 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,044 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,320 in damages. | Upheld | — | £2,320 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded £2,610 as a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,610 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £522. | Upheld | — | £522 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,496
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.