Case 3200775/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Spinks-Dear v Intesa (Leicester) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200775/2024
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Carpenter Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Spinks-Dear
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at East London Hearing Centre by CVP before Employment Judge M Carpenter on 26 June 2025, heard the claimant's complaints in the absence of the respondent, which did not attend. The claimant was unrepresented. The Tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, ordering a compensatory award of £16,000 with no basic award payable.
The Tribunal further found the complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages, unpaid holiday pay, and breach of contract in respect of unpaid pension contributions all well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £10,654.21 for the unauthorised deduction from wages, £1,009.65 for holiday pay, and £700 for the breach of contract claim, with the wages and holiday pay amounts being gross figures on which tax may be payable.
The total amount payable by the respondent to the claimant is £28,363.86. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Compensatory award of £16,000; no basic award payable. Respondent did not attend. | Upheld | — | £16,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross amount; tax may be payable. | Upheld | — | £10,654 |
| Holiday pay | Gross amount; tax may be payable. | Upheld | — | £1,010 |
| Breach of contract | In respect of unpaid pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,364
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £16,000
- 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.