Case 3305281/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. A. Akers (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305281/2024
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grahame Anderson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms. A. Akers (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bury St Edmunds CVP hearing on 23 May 2025, before Employment Judge Grahame Anderson, the respondent's application under r.21 of the ET Tribunal Rules 2024 to extend time to present a response was refused. The tribunal then recorded that Mr I. Rush's claims for ordinary unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and failure to provide written particulars of employment all succeeded.
The tribunal ordered K Wilby & Son Limited to pay Mr Rush £29,446.98 in total. That sum comprised a basic award of £14,957.25, a compensatory award of £10,723.33, £1,324.40 for unauthorised deductions from wages, and £2,442.00 for failure to provide written statement/particulars. The judgment also records that there was no further award of notice pay to avoid double recovery.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons only to follow if requested within the stated time limit. The supplied decision text therefore records the outcomes and the monetary awards, but not a fuller written explanation of the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Succeeded under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The award comprised a basic award of £14,957.25 and a compensatory award of £10,723.33. | Upheld | — | £25,681 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Succeeded under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. The judgment records that there was no further award of notice pay to avoid double recovery. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with an award of £1,324.40. | Upheld | — | £1,324 |
| Other | The judgment records a successful claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment / written statement and an award of £2,442.00. | Upheld | — | £2,442 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,447
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £14,957
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,723
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- r.21 of the ET Tribunal Rules 2024
- s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.