Case 2200537/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Williams v Riverside Group Limited FULL MERITS HEARING AT LONDON CENTRAL Heard between 14-15 August 2025 by CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200537/2025
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a full merits hearing heard between 14 and 15 August 2025 before Employment Judge Nicolle, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and arrears of pay/accrued holiday pay claims. The written judgment states that oral reasons were given on both liability and remedy, but the text supplied records only the dismissals and does not set out the underlying reasoning.
The respondent's application for costs under Rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 was refused. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'arrears of pay/accrued holiday pay' together and does not separate any award or reasoning between the heads. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to 'arrears of pay/accrued holiday pay' together and does not separate any award or reasoning between the heads. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.