Case 2500547/2025 · Employment Tribunal
(1) C Dickinson (2) E Cousins (3) D Reynolds First v Second Respondent: Third Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500547/2025
- Decision date
- 10 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) C Dickinson (2) E Cousins (3) D Reynolds First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined that the claimants were entitled to a redundancy payment from the second respondent. It also found that the first and second claimants' holiday pay complaint was well-founded because the second respondent failed to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when their employment ended.
The tribunal found breach of contract complaints well-founded against the second respondent in relation to notice pay contributions, employer pension contributions, pension deductions not paid into pensions, and the first claimant's December 2024 salary. It also found unauthorised deduction complaints well-founded in relation to pension deductions, holiday pay, and the first claimant's December 2024 salary.
The tribunal found the claimants' unfair dismissal complaint against the second respondent well-founded and stated that the claimants were unfairly dismissed. The claims against the third respondent were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimants are entitled to a redundancy payment from the second respondent. No amount was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The first and second claimants' holiday pay complaint was well-founded against the second respondent. No amount was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaints concerning notice pay contributions, employer pension contributions, employee pension deductions not paid into pensions, and the first claimant's December 2024 salary were well-founded against the second respondent. No amounts were stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction complaints concerning holiday pay, employee pension deductions not paid into pensions, and the first claimant's December 2024 salary were well-founded against the second respondent. No amounts were stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimants' unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded against the second respondent. The claims against the third respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.