Case 2600485/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Matthew King v Specialist Vocational Training Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2600485/2026
- Decision date
- 17 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Matthew King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge V Butler decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal upheld Matthew King's claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, awarding £2,379.87 gross; breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £5,354.04 in damages; and a redundancy payment, awarding £10,792.47. The judgment records a total of £18,526.38. It also states that the remedy would be determined at a Remedy Hearing, while recording that the hearing listed for 31 July 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,380 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £5,354 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £10,792 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,526
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.