Case 3311759/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Grimwood v Total Home Delivery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311759/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedMr A Grimwood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Grimwood brought claims of unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract for notice pay, 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 and ordered the respondent to pay £910.43 gross. The breach of contract claim for notice pay was well-founded; the claimant's contractual notice period was two months and the net notice pay was £4,264.61, less £271.50 in Jobseeker's Allowance received in mitigation, yielding £3,993.11 net.
The redundancy payment claim under s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and the respondent was ordered to pay £7,403.40 calculated under s.162 of the Act.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £910 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £3,993 |
| Redundancy | Upheld | — | £7,403 |
Legal tests applied
5 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,307
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.