Case 6000796/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ready v Rossendale Transport Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000796/2024
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ready
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Leeds CVP hearing on 29 January 2025, before Employment Judge Maidment, the tribunal dismissed the claimant’s complaints of sex discrimination and equal pay. Those complaints had previously been warned for strike out on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success, and the claimant made no submission to the contrary at the hearing.
The tribunal also struck out the complaint about denial of access to a pension scheme because it had no jurisdiction to hear that type of complaint. In relation to wages, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday entitlement at the date of termination and ordered payment of the gross sum of £54.60.
The claimant’s remaining complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were dismissed as not well founded. No other remedy was recorded beyond the gross award of £54.60.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed after the claimant did not respond to the previous strike-out warning that the complaint had no reasonable prospects of success; no submission to the contrary was made at the hearing. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | Dismissed after the claimant did not respond to the previous strike-out warning that the complaint had no reasonable prospects of success; no submission to the contrary was made at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint about denial of access to a pension scheme; struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that type of complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of accrued but untaken holiday entitlement at the date of termination. | Upheld | — | £55 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Remaining complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £55
- 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.