Case 2402521/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bull v Oxford Residential Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402521/2024
- Decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bull
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Phil Allen, sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 6 November 2024, found that Mr P Bull's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was well founded. The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in the sum of £26,736 and ordered payment of that amount to the claimant.
The tribunal also upheld the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Mr Bull had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him a basic award of £2,572 and a compensatory award of £500. The written record states that the judgment was sent to the parties on 8 November 2024.
The judgment was given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual procedure. No further reasoning is set out in the extracted text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the sum of £26,736 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum. | Upheld | — | £26,736 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded a basic award of £2,572 and a compensatory award of £500. | Upheld | — | £3,072 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,808
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,572
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.