Case 6007629/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Wickens v Redwood Technologies Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007629/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrison Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Wickens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Redwood Technologies Ltd was in breach of contract when it dismissed Mr E Wickens without notice. The decision records a single contractual finding and does not describe any other liability issues or claims.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,319.24. It stated that this was equivalent to 4 days' pay for 20 to 23 May 2024, calculated at a daily rate of £329.81, being 1/260th of an annual salary of £85,750. The tribunal also noted that the figure was calculated using gross pay because the claimant was likely to be taxed on it as Post Employment Notice Pay, and that the claimant would be responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that became due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. The award of £1,319.24 was said to be equivalent to 4 days' pay from 20-23 May 2024, calculated at 1/260th of an annual salary of £85,750 per day (£329.81). The tribunal said the figure was calculated using gross pay because the claimant was likely to be taxed on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £1,319 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,319
- 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.