Case 3201077/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Abbott v JRL Watson Accountants Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3201077/2025
- Decision date
- 25 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Abbott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed Mr A Abbott's breach of contract complaint as not well-founded. It found that he was at all times engaged under an approved English apprenticeship agreement pursuant to Chapter A1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and the 2017 Regulations.
The Tribunal also dismissed as not well-founded the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages concerning an alleged failure to pay minimum pay, and the complaint of unfair dismissal. It found that none of the grounds for making a costs order under Rule 73(1)(a) of the Tribunal Rules 2024 had been established. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found that the claimant was at all times engaged under an approved English apprenticeship agreement pursuant to Chapter A1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and the 2017 Regulations. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerned an alleged failure to pay minimum pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Chapter A1 Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and the 2017 Regulations
- Rule 73(1)(a) Tribunal Rules 2024
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.