Case 6005627/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J Potts C Fox Smith J Ruscoe Beech v WMEP Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005627/2025
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Potts C Fox Smith J Ruscoe Beech
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Batten (sitting alone) heard this consolidated matter at Manchester by video platform on 31 October 2025. Three claimants (J Potts, C Fox Smith, J Ruscoe Beech) appeared in person; the respondent (WMEP Ltd) failed to enter an appearance.
The Tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from each claimant's wages (Potts £5,063.33; Fox Smith and Ruscoe Beech £4,548.66 each) and ordered the respondent to pay those sums gross. Each claimant had also been dismissed without notice in breach of contract; the Tribunal awarded one month's contractual gross pay in damages (Potts £4,583.33; Fox Smith and Ruscoe Beech £4,166.66 each), grossed up to reflect likely Post Employment Notice Pay tax. The respondent was further ordered to pay each claimant their accrued but untaken holiday entitlement (Potts £1,163.47; Fox Smith and Ruscoe Beech £1,057.65 each).
Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Joined judgment for three claimants (Potts/Fox Smith/Ruscoe Beech). Wages awards: Potts £5,063.33; Fox Smith £4,548.66; Ruscoe Beech £4,548.66. | Upheld | — | £14,161 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages for breach of contract (1 month gross PILON, grossed up): Potts £4,583.33; Fox Smith £4,166.66; Ruscoe Beech £4,166.66. | Upheld | — | £12,917 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday: Potts £1,163.47; Fox Smith £1,057.65; Ruscoe Beech £1,057.65. | Upheld | — | £3,279 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,356
- across all upheld claims
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.