Case 6001044/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Grant Cook v Clearwater Consortium Ltd Held at: Watford Employment Tribunal (by CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001044/2025
- Decision date
- 11 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilson
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Grant Cook
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Wilson, sitting alone at Watford Employment Tribunal by CVP on 11 December 2025, heard the claim of Mr Grant Cook against Clearwater Consortium Ltd. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent was represented by Dr Alexander Purser (Technical Director) and Mr John Dalby (Managing Director).
The tribunal found that the claim of breach of contract was well-founded. The judgment records that the respondent made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the sum of £4,082.58 gross.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard tribunal practice. The written record of the decision was sent to the parties on 3 February 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim well-founded. The judgment also describes the sum as arising from unlawful deductions from wages, but it is recorded under a single award of £4,082.58 gross and is not split per claim. | Upheld | — | £4,083 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,083
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.