Case 3303489/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Matthew Van Den Broek v Unipools Limited and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 3303489/2025
- Decision date
- 25 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Matthew Van Den Broek
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMatthew Van Den Broek's employment with Unipools Limited ended on 30 March 2025 when the company ceased trading. He had been employed since 1 March 2000. The tribunal found that Unipools Limited had made unauthorised deductions from his wages for March 2025 and ordered it to pay £1,766.41 gross, subject to tax and National Insurance.
The tribunal found that he was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded £4,891.56 gross, subject to tax and National Insurance, calculated as 12 weeks at £407.63 per week. It also found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to £8,764.05, calculated as 21.5 × £407.63.
All three awards were payable by Unipools Limited. The claim against Leo Kevin Mindel was dismissed, without reasons given for that dismissal. The judgment set out the individual awards but did not state a combined total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages for March 2025. Unipools Limited was ordered to pay the gross award, subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,766 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. Unipools Limited was ordered to pay damages calculated as 12 weeks at £407.63, subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £4,892 |
| Redundancy | Payable by Unipools Limited, calculated as 21.5 × £407.63. | Upheld | — | £8,764 |
| Other | The claim against Leo Kevin Mindel was dismissed. The judgment does not specify its legal basis or explain the dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.