Case 6005061/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Shaw v CM Supplies Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005061/2025
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 14 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Hutchinson decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages of £1,912.93 gross, that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £13,270.40, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement of £183.04.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £15,366.37 in total. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Hutchinson on 23 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; awarded £1,912.93 gross. Determined under rule 22 after respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £1,913 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £13,270.40. | Upheld | — | £13,270 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; awarded £183.04. Holiday pay claim inferred from judgment paragraph 4; not separately listed in gov.uk categories. | Upheld | — | £183 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,366
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.