Case 2300855/2025 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mr P Payne 2. Mr P Russell 3. Mrs B Beeby v CTL Audiovisual Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2300855/2025
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Mr P Payne 2. Mr P Russell 3. Mrs B Beeby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Heath made awards in three linked judgments against CTL Audiovisual Services Limited (which did not attend). This case reference relates to claimant Mr P Payne, who was awarded a statutory redundancy payment under s.163 ERA 1996 of £4,320, notice pay (net) of £1,734, and £5,408.43 net for unauthorised deductions from wages in the period 30 August 2024 to 19 May 2025.
In the same judgment, sister claims under cases 2300856/2025 (Mr P Russell — £15,517.68 unlawful deductions only) and 2300857/2025 (Mrs B Beeby — £8,736 redundancy payment, £3,347.28 notice pay, £8,864.67 unlawful deductions, £2,250.50 holiday pay) were also determined.
Reasons were given orally and were not produced in writing unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Mr P Payne: statutory redundancy payment under s.163 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £4,320 |
| Breach of contract | Mr P Payne: notice pay (net). | Upheld | — | £1,734 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr P Payne: unauthorised deduction from wages 30 August 2024 to 19 May 2025 (net sum). | Upheld | — | £5,408 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,462
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.