Case 3306039/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Valentyn Demydiuk v First Respondent: Patrick James Long, William Stephen Long & the personal — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306039/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Valentyn Demydiuk
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that all claimants in case numbers 3306035/2024 to 3306065/2024 worked at Lutton Farm, that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment, and that 20 or more employees were placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 11 April 2024. Mr Demydiuk was dismissed as redundant on 3 May 2024, so the respondents failed to comply with s.188 TULRCA 1992. The claimant's protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA 1992 succeeded, and the Tribunal made a protective award for a protected period beginning on 11 April 2024 and lasting 90 days; it also stated that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
The Tribunal also found that the claimant had not been paid wages from 8 April 2024 to 3 May 2024, so the unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded in the sum of £2,425.13. The holiday pay claim succeeded in the sum of £252.80. The Tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy but had less than two years' service and was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. It recorded that the claimant mitigated loss after dismissal and that there was no claim for notice pay. The claim against the Sixth Respondent, the Secretary of State / Insolvency Service, was listed for a case management hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under s.189 TULRCA for failure to comply with s.188; the Tribunal ordered a 90-day protected period beginning on 11 April 2024 and stated that the Recoupment Regulations apply. The written judgment did not quantify the award as a cash sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy but had less than two years' service and was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay from 8 April 2024 to 3 May 2024. | Upheld | — | £2,425 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid accrued but untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £253 |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- s.189(5)(b) TULRCA 1992
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.