Case 2403697/2024 · Employment Tribunal
C M Ross v Stoneworld Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2403697/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Serr REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C M Ross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester by CVP on 5 March 2025 before Employment Judge Serr. The claimant, C M Ross, appeared in person and the respondent, Stoneworld Ltd, was represented by Mr Hendley, Employment Law Consultant. The Tribunal dismissed both complaints before it: unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages. Each was held to be not well-founded.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. No written reasons are provided in the extracted decision, so the public record here records only the outcome and not the tribunal's detailed reasoning. The judgment was sent to the parties on 25 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.