Case 6007638/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kevin Batterbee v Sedgemoor Community Transport — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007638/2024
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sanger REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kevin Batterbee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol by CVP on 21 March 2025 before Employment Judge Sanger. The respondent did not appear. The written judgment records that the tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal held that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s basic award and ordered payment of £4,320. It also held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £953.47.
The written record does not set out further findings of fact or legal reasoning beyond those two outcomes and the amounts awarded. The respondent was recorded as being responsible for tax and National Insurance contributions on the wage deduction award, and the total award recorded in the judgment is £5,273.47.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s basic award and ordered payment of £4,320. The judgment does not provide a separate factual breakdown or written reasons beyond recording that oral reasons were given at the hearing. | Upheld | — | £4,320 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £953.47. The respondent was recorded as responsible for tax and National Insurance contributions on that sum. | Upheld | — | £953 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,273
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,320
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.