Case 6000857/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Daniel Nelson v Advantage Air Conditioning Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000857/2026
- Decision date
- 9 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Daniel Nelson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDaniel Nelson presented the claim against Advantage Air Conditioning Limited on 7 January 2026. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Nelson’s wages and ordered it to pay £5,905 gross. It also found that Mr Nelson had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £750 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Nelson’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,650. The total sum ordered was £8,305.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,905 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £750 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,305
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.