Case 2310052/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sturtivant v Centurion Warranties Ltd (Mr Geoff Baker) — 2026
- Case reference
- 2310052/2025
- Decision date
- 3 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sturtivant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Sturtivant presented his claim against Centurion Warranties Ltd (Mr Geoff Baker) in the London South Employment Tribunal on 31 December 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Heath decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Sturtivant’s wages and ordered payment of £938.89 gross. It also found that he had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £6,500 in damages.
The tribunal found that Mr Sturtivant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a £5,000 redundancy payment. It awarded a further £600 for unpaid holiday entitlement. The judgment, approved on 3 August 2026, ordered the respondent to pay £13,038.89 in total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award is gross. | Upheld | — | £939 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £6,500 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,000 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,039
- 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.