Case 1600903/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K M Edwards v GB Nametapes Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600903/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K M Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim on the papers. The tribunal found for the claimant on four heads: unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, redundancy payment, and holiday entitlement.
The tribunal ordered £866.66 for unauthorised deductions from wages, £433.33 as damages for notice, £2,000.00 as a redundancy payment, and £200.00 for holiday entitlement. The total award was £3,499.99 gross. The hearing listed for 18 September 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £866.66 for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £867 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered gross damages of £433.33. | Upheld | — | £433 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded £2,000.00. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £200.00. | Upheld | — | £200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,500
- 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.