Mr Adam Warren v Mr Brian Ingham — 2025

Case reference: 6004418/2024
Decision date: 9 July 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cadney

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Adam Warren

Respondent

Mr Brian Ingham

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 22 June 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.

On the papers, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Adam Warren’s wages and ordered payment of £1,144.10. It also found unauthorised deductions in the failure to pay accrued holiday pay and ordered payment of £1,026.94.

The judgment records a total award of £2,171.04. It was approved on 3 June 2025 and sent to the parties on 9 July 2025.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £1,144.10.	Upheld	—	£1,144
Holiday pay	The tribunal found unauthorised deductions in the failure to pay accrued holiday pay and ordered payment of £1,026.94.	Upheld	—	£1,027

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,171; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.