Case 2306679/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sindelar v R.I.M.A.C.D Limited (in CVL) — 2026
- Case reference
- 2306679/2025
- Decision date
- 16 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Attendances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sindelar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at London (South) via CVP on 16 January 2026 before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend. The tribunal found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract by failing to return a £700 driver deposit at the end of the employment.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the total sum of £700. The judgment does not break the award into separate components and does not address interest, basic or compensatory awards, or any other remedy heads. The gov.uk listing categories of unlawful deduction from wages and working time regulations are not reflected in the substantive findings recorded in the short judgment, which is framed as a breach of contract claim concerning the deposit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to return a £700 driver deposit at the end of the employment. The respondent did not attend the hearing. | Upheld | — | £700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £700
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.