Case 6005560/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J Lea v Digital Connections Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005560/2025
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Lea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 19 February 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy entitling him to a statutory redundancy payment. The holiday pay complaint was also well-founded as the respondent had not paid for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £11,475.54 in total. The judgment notes that the award is part gross and part net, with the claimant responsible for any tax liabilities arising out of the gross award if tax is not deducted at source.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; respondent ordered to pay £1,721.42 net. | Upheld | — | £1,721 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £1,096.15 (two weeks' lost earnings). | Upheld | — | £1,096 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment of £7,947.01 (10 x 1 x £548.07 = £5,480.70 plus 3 x 1.5 x £548.07 = £2,466.31). | Upheld | — | £7,947 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint well-founded; respondent must pay £710.96 for holidays accrued but not taken. | Upheld | — | £711 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,476
- 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.