Case 6000408/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J Sheppard v Adp Transport and Recovery Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000408/2025
- Decision date
- 9 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Sheppard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for redundancy pay, unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages against ADP Transport and Recovery Ltd. The case was heard at London South by CVP on 9 February 2026 before Employment Judge D Wright sitting alone.
The redundancy pay claim was dismissed upon being withdrawn. The Tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed and so the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded. The breach of contract claim and most of the deduction-from-wages claim were not well founded; one element of the deduction-from-wages claim (relating to a deduction for cleaning) was well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £150.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for redundancy pay dismissed upon being withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed; the unfair dismissal claim is not well founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction of wages claim upheld in part — only the deduction for cleaning was well founded; the remainder dismissed. £150 ordered. | Upheld | — | £150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £150
- 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.