Case 6002395/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Newberry v Solar Services South West Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002395/2024
- Decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Newberry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dawson, sitting at Southampton, considered a strike-out application at a preliminary hearing. The claimant represented himself; the respondent was represented by its director.
The judge struck out the claim for a redundancy payment and the claims of non-payment of wages and expenses for non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders. The claims of unfair dismissal and holiday pay were not struck out and continue under separate Case Management Orders.
The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the hearing assessed at £120, payable at the end of the proceedings. The £120 costs award is against the claimant; remedy_amount on individual claims is therefore null per the spec for non-claimant awards.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims of non-payment of wages and expenses struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal orders. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Not struck out at this preliminary hearing; proceeds under Case Management Orders. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Not struck out at this preliminary hearing; proceeds under Case Management Orders. | Other | — | — |
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.