Case 6001641/2024 · Employment Tribunal
G Shipton v Beatclub Inc. — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001641/2024
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Shipton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 10 April 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge made a determination under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. No hearing dates were extracted from the judgment text.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It awarded £13,461.50 gross together with £592.90 in employee pension contributions, and it also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £5,833.33 damages.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,286.00. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £538.46. The judgment records a total payable by the respondent of £21,712.19.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award includes £13,461.50 gross plus £592.90 in employee pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £14,054 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £5,833 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,286 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,712
- 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.