Case 3305154/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Warner For the v Reeves of Sheringham Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305154/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M. Hunt Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D. Warner For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M. Hunt, sitting at Norwich by CVP on 30 September 2025, heard joined claims by Mr D. Warner and Ms C. Uhlmann against Reeves of Sheringham Limited. The Respondent did not attend. The Tribunal found that both Claimants' complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were well-founded and succeeded, and that Mr Warner's complaint of wrongful dismissal was also well-founded and succeeded.
The Respondent was ordered to pay Mr Warner £5,203.87 net on account of unpaid wages and £364.70 as damages for wrongful dismissal. The Respondent was ordered to pay Ms Uhlmann £2,501.92 net and £297 gross on account of unpaid wages, together with £385 gross on account of notice pay.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr D. Warner: £5,203.87 net on account of unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £5,204 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Mr D. Warner: £364.70 damages for wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | £365 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms C. Uhlmann: £2,501.92 net plus £297 gross on account of unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £2,799 |
| Breach of contract | Ms C. Uhlmann: £385 gross on account of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £385 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,753
- across all upheld claims
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.