Case 1809342/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G McCarthy v Bentley Fencing Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1809342/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G McCarthy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record states that Employment Judge Tegerdine heard the remedy hearing by video at Sheffield on 4 April 2025. It records that the Tribunal had already issued a judgment on 14 March 2025 under rule 22 upholding the claimant's complaints, and that the respondent did not attend the remedy hearing.
The Tribunal then made separate awards for four heads of loss: £1,800 for unpaid wages between 9 and 30 August 2024; £1,320 for 11 days of accrued but untaken holiday at the end of employment, calculated at £120 per day; £7,200 for 12 weeks' statutory notice pay at £600 per week; and £18,000 for a statutory redundancy payment calculated on 20 years' service at 1.5 weeks' pay per year. The respondent was ordered to pay the sums on or before 20 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross award for unpaid wages between 9 August 2024 and 30 August 2024. | Upheld | — | £1,800 |
| Holiday pay | Gross award for 11 days' accrued but untaken holiday between 1 January 2024 and 30 August 2024; the tribunal described this as an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,320 |
| Breach of contract | Gross statutory notice pay, calculated as 12 weeks' notice at £600 per week. | Upheld | — | £7,200 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment, calculated as 20 years x 1.5 x £600 per week. | Upheld | — | £18,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,320
- 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.