Case 2402920/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Bigwood v Cubex (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402920/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Bigwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr T Bigwood's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. The written record does not set out detailed reasons beyond the formal outcome; it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The complaint of unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The tribunal ordered Cubex (UK) Limited to pay £340, comprising £200 for deductions concerning the EV Charger and £140 for the sale of a Surface Pro.
The holiday pay complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. No separate remedy was recorded for that complaint, and the only monetary award in the judgment was the £340 ordered on the unlawful deduction claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint was described as constructive unfair dismissal and was found not well founded, so it was unsuccessful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. The award of £340 was made up of deductions concerning the EV Charger (£200) and the sale of a Surface Pro (£140). | Upheld | — | £340 |
| Holiday pay | The complaint of holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £340
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 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.