Case 3307665/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Dean Johnston v Total Home Delivery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307665/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dean Johnston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's name was amended to Total Home Delivery Limited. The claim form was sent to the respondent in accordance with rule 16 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, and the respondent did not present a response.
The claimant provided further information by correspondence, allowing the Tribunal to determine the claims under rule 22. The Tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages well founded and ordered payment of £1,526.30 gross for accrued but untaken holiday not paid on termination.
The Tribunal also found the claim for a redundancy payment well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £6,300, calculated in accordance with Employment Rights Act 1996 section 162.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as unauthorised deductions from wages under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13, for holiday accrued but untaken and not paid on termination. | Upheld | — | £1,526 |
| Redundancy | The judgment describes this as a redundancy payment under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 135, calculated in accordance with section 162. | Upheld | — | £6,300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,826
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 16 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 135
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 162
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.