Case 1801455/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Watson v Doing More Print Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1801455/2024
- Decision date
- 2 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 29 February 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Bright determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £7,617.61. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £7,031.64.
The Tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £14,649.25, calculated on 17 years' full service. Judgment was given by Employment Judge Bright on 2 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination following respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. Award is the gross amount of unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £7,618 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £7,032 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment calculated on 17 years' full service. | Upheld | — | £14,649 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,299
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.