Case 2602525/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Haynes v Sunbelt Rentals Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2602525/2023
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch
- Venue
- Leicester
- Panel members
- Mr K Libetta, Mr K Rose
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Haynes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leicester, the unanimous tribunal dismissed the claims of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, detriment for making protected disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996, health and safety detriment under section 44 ERA 1996, and unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of bonus. The judgment records that no evidence had been presented on those complaints.
The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of sick pay succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 1 to 29 April 2023 and ordered the respondent to pay £2,478.93, described as the gross sum deducted. The tribunal noted that the claimant was responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. The tribunal stated that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal (constructive) for making protected disclosures; dismissed because no evidence was presented. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making protected disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996; dismissed because no evidence was presented. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Health and safety detriment under section 44 ERA 1996; dismissed because no evidence was presented. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of bonus; dismissed because no evidence was presented. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of sick pay. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction in the period 1 to 29 April 2023 and ordered repayment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £2,479 |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim; the tribunal found the complaint was not well-founded and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,479
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.