Case 6003192/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Joe Holloway v Forsetti Global Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003192/2025
- Decision date
- 22 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Joe Holloway
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Forsetti Global Limited (in voluntary liquidation) had made unauthorised deductions from Joe Holloway's wages amounting to £8,333.33 gross. It also found that Mr Holloway was dismissed without notice in breach of contract and that his notice pay should have been £50,000 gross.
The respondent was ordered to pay £25,000 in total. The tribunal stated that this was the payment limit imposed by Article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994; it did not allocate that capped total between the two successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions of £8,333.33 gross, but did not allocate its capped total payment order between the two claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed without notice in breach of contract and that the notice pay should have been £50,000 gross, but did not allocate its capped total payment order between the two claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.