Case 3311780/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Thomson v Glass Vision UK Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311780/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Thomson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 10 December 2024. The respondent, Glass Vision UK Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation), failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Postle recorded that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The judgment upheld three heads of claim. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £494.00 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages assessed at £5,122.60.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,410.00 gross. The total amount payable was recorded as £13,026.60.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £494.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £494 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,122.60. | Upheld | — | £5,123 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered a redundancy payment of £7,410.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £7,410 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,027
- 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.