Case 1805832/2025 · Employment Tribunal
David Styles v Apollo 777 Limited Heard: by CVP — 2026
- Case reference
- 1805832/2025
- Decision date
- 3 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
David Styles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ayre heard the case by CVP on 3 February 2026. The claimant, David Styles, brought claims against Apollo 777 Limited for constructive unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, holiday pay and breach of contract in respect of expenses.
The tribunal upheld the claim for constructive unfair dismissal and ordered the respondent to pay total compensation of £8,361.50. The unauthorised deductions from wages claim succeeded, with £8,649.03 ordered. The breach of contract claim regarding expenses also succeeded, with £329.78 ordered. The holiday pay claim was found not well founded and was dismissed.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £17,340.31. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Judgment records the claim as 'constructive unfair dismissal'; total compensation for unfair dismissal ordered. | Upheld | — | £8,362 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £8,649 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim in respect of expenses. | Upheld | — | £330 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,340
- 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.