Case 3311184/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Nash v Cotswold Drinks Co. Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311184/2023
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Nash
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,608.52 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £966.12 for that breach. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £514.93.
The claimant's SSP claim was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to declare an entitlement to statutory sick pay. The total sum payable under the judgment was £4,089.57.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £2,608.52 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,609 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £966.12 damages. | Upheld | — | £966 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £514.93. | Upheld | — | £515 |
| Other | The claimant's SSP claim was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to declare entitlement to statutory sick pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,090
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.