Case 1801037/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Baker v Doing More Print Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1801037/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Baker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 15 February 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Maidment Date determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal was content under rule 91 that the claim had reached the respondent company because it was served at its registered office, and Doing More Print Ltd was substituted as the correctly named respondent under rule 34.
On the substantive claims, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £234.45 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,813.40 gross, found that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £6,916.28, found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered £234.45 gross, and upheld the complaint that a statutory guarantee payment had not been paid, ordering £175.00. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £10,373.58.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £234 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Award for notice pay in respect of dismissal in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £2,813 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £6,916 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £234 |
| Other | Statutory guarantee payment. | Upheld | — | £175 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,374
- 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.