Case 3303689/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Edom v Bespoke Fire and Flue Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303689/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Edom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge K Welch, found that Mr M Edom’s claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. It awarded £5,906.44 in respect of that claim, made up of a basic award of £1,575 and a compensatory award of £4,331.44.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deductions from wages in respect of unpaid expenses was well founded and succeeded. That claim was awarded £94.98. The total sum ordered to be paid within 28 days was £6,001.42.
The claimant’s claims for holiday pay and for unlawful deductions from wages relating to overtime pay were found not well founded and failed. The tribunal also recorded that the recoupment regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim succeeded. Awarded a basic award of £1,575 and a compensatory award of £4,331.44. | Upheld | — | £5,906 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded in respect of unpaid expenses. | Upheld | — | £95 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from wages relating to overtime pay failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,001
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,575
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,331
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.