Case 2500107/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Neil Kenny v Ceejay Construction Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500107/2025
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Robertson Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Neil Kenny
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 18 November 2025 by CVP. The respondent did not appear and was not represented; the claimant appeared in person. Employment Judge L Robertson found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £6,864 gross for the period 28 October 2024 to 7 February 2025.
The tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded, ordering payment of £292.86 for accrued but untaken leave at the end of employment. Under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the claimant was determined to be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £9,380.80.
Reasons were given orally; written reasons would only be provided on request. The judgment did not provide a single bottom-line aggregate, but the three sums together amount to £16,537.66.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deduction from wages between 28 October 2024 and 7 February 2025; gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £6,864 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holidays accrued but untaken on termination; treated as unauthorised deduction. | Upheld | — | £293 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment determined under section 163 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £9,381 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,538
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 163 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.