Case 3308996/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jason Gibbs v Alfateq Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308996/2024
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jason Gibbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 13 September 2024 and listed for hearing on 10 July 2025 at Watford by CVP before Employment Judge Graham. The respondent did not present a valid response on time and did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal therefore proceeded under rule 22, and the hearing was converted to a final hearing under rule 48. The tribunal also found that Alfateq Limited was Mr Gibbs' employer and substituted it as respondent under rule 35 in place of Mr Edmond Kirkham.
On the merits, the tribunal upheld Mr Gibbs' claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, and unpaid holiday entitlement. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £8,000 gross. It also found dismissal in breach of contract as to notice and awarded £923.07 in damages, and it found holiday entitlement had not been paid and awarded £1,571.42.
The whistleblowing detriment complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment records a total award of £10,494.49.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £8,000 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages in respect of notice on dismissal. | Upheld | — | £923 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,571 |
| Whistleblowing | Judgment states the complaint of whistleblowing detriment was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,494
- across all upheld claims
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.