Case 3307671/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Andrew McLean v Total Home Delivery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307671/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Andrew McLean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAndrew McLean brought claims of unauthorised deductions from wages and a statutory redundancy payment against Total Home Delivery Limited. The respondent did not present a response to the claim. The claimant provided further information by correspondence to the Tribunal, upon which Employment Judge Gordon Walker made a determination under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.
The Tribunal found the unauthorised deductions claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded, ordering the respondent to pay £686.40 gross for unpaid wages and £686.40 gross for accrued holiday unpaid on termination. The redundancy payment claim under s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and the respondent was ordered to pay £6,006 calculated under s.162 of the Act.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The respondent ordered to pay £686.40 gross for unpaid wages and £686.40 gross for holiday accrued but untaken on termination. | Upheld | — | £1,373 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment claim under s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The respondent ordered to pay a redundancy payment of £6,006 calculated in accordance with s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £6,006 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,379
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.