Case 3305500/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jack Massingham v Tipsey Vegan (Norwich) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305500/2024
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge EJ
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jack Massingham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 29 May 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing on the merits.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £795 gross. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £442, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, awarding £106.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,343 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge M Warren on 11 July 2025 and sent to the parties on 14 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; respondent ordered to pay £795 gross. Rule 22 determination after respondent failed to file a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £795 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £442 awarded. | Upheld | — | £442 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; £106 awarded. Listed under Working Time Regulations on gov.uk. | Upheld | — | £106 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,343
- 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.