Case 2601969/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bradley Shaw v Morgan Woods Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2601969/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R CLark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bradley Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 14 November 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge R CLark determined under rule 22 that a decision could properly be made on the claim.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that Morgan Woods Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Bradley Shaw's wages and ordered payment of £1,790.07 net. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,840.07 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £954.70 net. The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £4,584.84 in total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,790.07 net. | Upheld | — | £1,790 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,840.07 damages. | Upheld | — | £1,840 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £954.70 net. | Upheld | — | £955 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,585
- across all upheld claims
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.