Case 3302594/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Read v Lockmasters Mobile (National Accounts) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302594/2025
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Read
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 11 May 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £9,217.60. It also found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £13,826.40.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,659.17. It also found unlawful deductions from wages and ordered payment of £735.
The total sum payable was £25,438.17.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £9,218 |
| Redundancy | The claimant was found entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £13,826 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,659 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £735 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,438
- 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.