Case 1601560/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Thomas v Bespoke Care Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601560/2021
- Decision date
- 28 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Swansea
- Panel members
- Mr R Mead, Mr B Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Thomas brought claims against Bespoke Care Group Limited for automatic unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages, and pay for accrued but untaken holiday. The case was heard at Swansea on 26 and 27 September 2022 before Employment Judge S Jenkins with Mr R Mead and Mr B Roberts sitting as the lay members. The judgment records that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
All four claims succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of a basic award of £2,509.91 for the unfair dismissal claim, £1,342.00 gross for breach of contract, £462.00 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages, and £924.00 gross for holiday pay. The total award was £5,237.91, with tax to be deducted from the last three sums.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as automatic unfair dismissal and awards a basic award only. | Upheld | — | £2,510 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £1,342 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded gross for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £462 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded gross for accrued but untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £924 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,238
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,510
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.