Case 2405503/2025 · Employment Tribunal
D Cahalin v Kline John Kent t/a Kent’s Garden Services — 2026
- Case reference
- 2405503/2025
- Decision date
- 5 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
D Cahalin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 18 October 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge M Butler 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 the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £210.00 gross, described as unpaid salary for 3 days at £70 per day. The tribunal also found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract in respect of unpaid motoring costs and ordered damages of £64.40, calculated as 161 miles at 40p per mile.
The total sum ordered was £274.40. The judgment included a notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 stating that no interest is payable if the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the written record was sent to the parties on 10 June 2026, with interest otherwise accruing from 11 June 2026 at 8% per annum; no specific interest sum was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award described as £210.00 gross for unpaid salary for 3 days at £70 per day. | Upheld | — | £210 |
| Breach of contract | Award described as damages for unpaid motoring costs, equivalent to 161 miles at 40p per mile. | Upheld | — | £64 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £274
- 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.