Case 3300012/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gavin Thomson v Glass Vision UK Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300012/2025
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge EJ
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gavin Thomson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented at the Watford Employment Tribunal on 3 January 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The judgment was issued on the papers without a hearing recorded in the text.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £494 gross. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £5,122.60, and that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,410.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £13,026.60 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge M Warren on 11 July 2025 and sent to the parties on 14 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; award stated as £494 gross. | Upheld | — | £494 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £5,122.60. | Upheld | — | £5,123 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,410. | Upheld | — | £7,410 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,027
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.