Case 3200277/2025 · Employment Tribunal
MR ANDREW BRIDGLAND v Redhead Couriers Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200277/2025
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Carpenter Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR ANDREW BRIDGLAND
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London East Hearing Centre, Employment Judge Carpenter heard the case on 17 and 18 September 2025. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and found that Mr Andrew Bridgland was unfairly dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £2,568.75 and a compensatory award of £2,358.13 on that claim.
The tribunal also found that the complaint in respect of unpaid overtime wages was well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £61.65. The judgment does not set out written reasons in this record; it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The wrongful dismissal claim was found not to be well-founded and was dismissed. The total amount payable by Redhead Couriers Ltd to the claimant was recorded as £4,988.53.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded and awarded a basic award of £2,568.75 plus a compensatory award of £2,358.13. | Upheld | — | £4,927 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this claim as a complaint in respect of unpaid overtime wages and awards £61.65. | Upheld | — | £62 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,989
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,569
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,358
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.