Case 2602040/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Adam Barker v I Ceramics Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602040/2023
- Decision date
- 27 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Adam Barker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On the papers, the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made without a hearing, and the hearing listed for 27 February 2024 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £2,510. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, although the judgment records that the claimant did not seek damages for that breach.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,055. No discrimination or other additional claims are recorded in the judgment, and no separate damages figure is given for the breach of contract finding.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £2,510. | Upheld | — | £2,510 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, but the judgment states that the claimant did not seek damages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,055. | Upheld | — | £6,055 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,565
- 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.