Case 3306654/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Warren Talbot v Canopy UK Direct Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306654/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Hunt Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Warren Talbot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningWarren Talbot brought claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against Canopy UK Direct Ltd. The case was heard by video at Watford on 25 March 2025 before Employment Judge K Hunt, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by its director, Mrs Ellingham.
The tribunal held that Mr Talbot did not have the necessary two years' qualifying service to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it.
The tribunal also found that the unlawful deduction from wages claim was not well founded and dismissed it. The written record records no monetary award and does not identify any separate remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' qualifying service, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.