Case 2303639/2025 · Employment Tribunal
B Reid v Mashtraxx Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 2303639/2025
- Decision date
- 22 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Anderson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
B Reid
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined B Reid's claims against Mashtraxx Limited (in voluntary liquidation) under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The respondent had not filed a valid response and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal found that the claim and hearing notification had been validly served at its then registered address. Reid gave evidence on oath and supplied supporting documents. His employment had ended with immediate effect on 7 February 2025 by reason of redundancy.
The tribunal awarded £41,730.78 for unauthorised deductions from wages, calculated as three months and one week at a gross monthly salary of £12,916.67. This exceeded the unpaid salary figure in the respondent's termination letter. It also awarded £12,916.67 in damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and £4,200 in redundancy pay. Holiday pay of £1,490.38 covered accrual from 1 January to 7 February 2025 under clause 12 of the employment contract, which provided for 2.33 days each month. The tribunal rejected Reid's claim that holiday continued to accrue until May 2025. It awarded £325 for contractual travel expenses, accepting his evidence that a director had acknowledged the amount owed.
The claim for compensation for lost share options was refused. Reid valued the loss at around £200,000, while his claim form stated approximately $422,000. Having reviewed the share options agreement, the tribunal found nothing establishing a right to compensation for lost options on redundancy or a basis for quantifying the loss. It made no award under that head.
The judgment states a total gross award of £60,670.83, payable within 28 days of being sent to the parties, subject to relevant tax and national insurance deductions. The five individual awards add up to £60,662.83, leaving an £8 discrepancy with the stated total. Reid had received some payments from the Insolvency Service but could not give the precise amount at the hearing. The tribunal directed the parties to ensure there was no double recovery.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross award for three months and one week of unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £41,731 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Gross damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £12,917 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,200 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday accrued from 1 January to 7 February 2025. The tribunal rejected the claimant's proposed accrual through May 2025. | Upheld | — | £1,490 |
| Breach of contract | Unpaid contractual travel expenses. The operative judgment identifies December 2024, while the reasons refer to December 2025. The amount and outcome are clear, but the expense date is inconsistent. | Upheld | — | £325 |
| Other | The claim for compensation for lost share options was refused. The agreement did not establish entitlement to compensation on redundancy or how the loss could be quantified. No award was made under this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £60,671
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.