Case 1808905/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hall v One Pool & Spa Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808905/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing in Leeds on 11 July 2024, before Employment Judge Shepherd and with no appearance for the respondent, the tribunal recorded that Mr D Hall's claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, breach of contract and unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded against One Pool and Spa Limited. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not provided in writing.
The judgment records the monetary awards made on each successful claim: statutory redundancy pay of £1,929.00, breach of contract notice pay of £1,396.16 gross, and unauthorised deduction from wages of £1,400.00 gross. The unfair dismissal claim was recorded as nil because the basic award was included within the statutory redundancy pay and no compensatory award was claimed. The total amount ordered to be paid was £4,725.16.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Award recorded as nil; the tribunal noted that the basic award was included within the statutory redundancy pay and that no compensatory award was claimed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy pay awarded at £1,929.00. | Upheld | — | £1,929 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded at £1,396.16 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,396 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages awarded at £1,400 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,725
- 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.