Case 1804464/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Grandfield v Liberty Trading (GB) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804464/2022
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Grandfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 31 August 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Maidment determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 3 November 2022 was cancelled.
On the papers, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in relation to one week's wages in June 2022 and accrued holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £841.20 gross for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded £3,646.50 in damages. It further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,591.75.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to 1 week's wages in June 2022 and the claimant's accrued holiday entitlement. The judgment does not split the £841.20 award between those heads. | Upheld | — | £841 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £3,646.50. | Upheld | — | £3,647 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £6,591.75. | Upheld | — | £6,592 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,079
- 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.