Case 1800901/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Thomas v Garrison Security Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800901/2023
- Decision date
- 3 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 9 February 2023. The hearing was held remotely by video at Leeds on 3 May 2023 before Employment Judge Miller. The claimant, Mr D Thomas, appeared in person. The respondent, Garrison Security Group Ltd, did not attend and had failed to present a valid response on time.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant wages and expenses owed in breach of contract. Judgment was entered for the claimant, and the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £469. The written record does not break that sum into separate heads of loss or identify any additional remedy beyond the gross payment ordered.
No discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other statutory claims are identified in the judgment text. The decision is a short default judgment based on the respondent's failure to respond, with the substantive finding limited to the unpaid wages and expenses found to be due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant wages and expenses owed in breach of contract. It does not separately identify any other claim type or split the award. | Upheld | — | £469 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £469
- 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.