Case 1803846/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Steel v Mr Paul Blakeston t/a Cubitts Construction Company — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803846/2023
- Decision date
- 31 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Steel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal corrected the respondent's name to Mr Paul Blakeston t/a Cubitts Construction Company. It then found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £5,771.88.
The tribunal also found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday entitlement accrued at the termination of employment, and ordered the respondent to pay £240.46 gross. In addition, it found that the dismissal was in breach of contract and ordered payment of £1,577.45 gross.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found in the claimant's favour but recorded that there was no basic or compensatory award. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,772 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award was for an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday entitlement accrued at termination, stated as a gross sum. | Upheld | — | £240 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract and ordered payment of a gross sum. | Upheld | — | £1,577 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed but made no basic or compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,590
- 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.