Case 1600771/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Delf v Leabold Financial Management Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600771/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Delf
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Cardiff on 19, 20 and 21 February 2024 before Employment Judge Leith. The claimant, Mr G Delf, appeared in person and the respondents were represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded two complaints: unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages.
The judgment states that both the unfair dismissal complaint and the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint against the first and second respondents failed and were dismissed. No separate remedy was awarded and no monetary figures are recorded in the written judgment.
The written record notes that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. It also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party at the hearing or by written request within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint against the first and second respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint against the first and second respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.