Case 1600078/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Felstead v FK & More Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600078/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Felstead
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 12 January 2024 and the Respondent did not defend it. The Employment Judge determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, deciding the claim on the papers without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and must pay £2520.83 gross. It also found that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7853.36. The claim for breach of contract was held not to be well founded and was dismissed.
In total, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £10374.19 gross, with the Claimant responsible for any tax and employee national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and must pay £2520.83 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,521 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £7853.36. | Upheld | — | £7,853 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the breach of contract claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,374
- 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.