Case 1600145/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Courtney v Lucinda & Deian Jones (a partnership, trading as “Roger Jones & Sons”) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600145/2025
- Decision date
- 1 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Courtney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 9 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Brace determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £2,080 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,460.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,460.00. The judgment records a total sum payable by the respondent of £11,000 and states that the claimant is responsible for any tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 wages and ordered payment of £2,080 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,080 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,460 damages. | Upheld | — | £3,460 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,460.00. | Upheld | — | £5,460 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,000
- 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.