Case 6006488/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kenneth Davis v Quick Fix Computers Redditch Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6006488/2024
- Decision date
- 16 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rhodes Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kenneth Davis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rhodes heard the case at London Central by CVP on 2 October 2024. The claimant, Mr Kenneth Davis, appeared in person; the respondent, Quick Fix Computers Redditch Ltd, did not enter a response and was not represented at the hearing.
The tribunal found three complaints to be well-founded. The complaint for a redundancy payment succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £5,710.50. The complaint of wrongful dismissal succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £846 before statutory deductions. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, relating to non-payment of holiday pay, also succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £846 before statutory deductions.
The judgment was sent to the parties on 16 October 2024. The judgment text does not set out detailed reasoning or reference specific legal tests.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the complaint well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £5,710.50. | Upheld | — | £5,711 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found the complaint well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £846 (before statutory deductions). | Upheld | — | £846 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint concerned non-payment of holiday pay; well-founded; £846 awarded (before statutory deductions). | Upheld | — | £846 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,403
- 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.