Case 2600860/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Gregory Tydeman v Alkota Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600860/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gregory Tydeman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The claim was issued in the Midlands (East) Region on 5 April 2024 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, enabling Employment Judge Clark to determine the claim on the information provided by the claimant.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages (£8,700 gross), that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice (£2,900 in damages), that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,929, and that the respondent had failed to pay his holiday entitlement (£167.30). The hearing listed for 15 August 2024 was cancelled.
The claimant also sought a remedy for unpaid pension contributions (£561.21 employee, £642.62 employer, plus £71.40 arising from the notice claim). The judge observed that this did not appear to be a matter within the tribunal's jurisdiction and would be one for the Pensions Ombudsman, but did not dismiss the pension claim at this stage. Any remaining claims would stand dismissed on 13 September 2024 unless the claimant wrote to the tribunal before that date setting out the basis on which they could proceed.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; respondent ordered to pay £8,700 gross. | Upheld | — | £8,700 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £2,900 awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,900 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,929. | Upheld | — | £1,929 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement; £167.30 awarded. | Upheld | — | £167 |
| Unfair dismissal | Listed by gov.uk under Unfair Dismissal but the Rule 21 judgment does not adjudicate an unfair dismissal claim on its merits; any remaining claims stand dismissed on 13 September 2024 unless the claimant writes to the tribunal before that date. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Working Time Regulations were among the gov.uk listed categories but the Rule 21 judgment addresses holiday pay only; any remaining claims to stand dismissed on 13 September 2024 unless the claimant writes in. | Other | — | — |
| Other |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,696
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.