Case 3300006/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Day v Total Home Delivery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300006/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedMr D Day
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Day brought claims of unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract for notice pay, and a statutory redundancy payment against Total Home Delivery Limited. The Tribunal first amended the respondent's name to Total Home Delivery Limited. The respondent did not present a response to the claim. The claimant provided further information by correspondence to the Tribunal, upon which Employment Judge Gordon Walker made a determination under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.
The Tribunal found the unauthorised deductions claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded, ordering the respondent to pay £2,947.80 gross for unpaid wages and £1,734 gross for accrued holiday unpaid on termination. The breach of contract claim for notice pay was well-founded; the claimant's statutory notice period was three weeks and the respondent was ordered to pay £1,935 net of tax (calculated as £2,085 less £150 mitigation earnings). The redundancy payment claim under s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and the respondent was ordered to pay £1,750 calculated under s.162 of the Act.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £4,682 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £1,935 |
| Redundancy | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
Legal tests applied
5 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,367
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.