Case 6008648/2025 · Employment Tribunal
C M L Worgan v Clearcrystaluk Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008648/2025
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C M L Worgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRule 22 default judgment by Employment Judge Phil Allen as the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judge found unauthorised deductions in respect of 15 days sick pay (£1,234.71 gross) and a dismissal in breach of contract regarding notice (£1,234.71 damages, calculated on gross pay to reflect Post Employment Notice Pay tax treatment). The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a £1,234.71 redundancy payment (1 week per complete year of service aged 22-41). The unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded but no basic award was made because it was extinguished by the redundancy payment. Holiday pay of £1,317.80 gross was awarded for 16 days accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. The total payable was £5,021.93.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions in respect of 15 days sick pay; £1,234.71 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,235 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract regarding notice; damages £1,234.71 calculated using gross pay to reflect Post Employment Notice Pay tax treatment. | Upheld | — | £1,235 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment: 1 week per year of service aged 22-41 (1 x 3 x £411.57). | Upheld | — | £1,235 |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. No basic award made because it has been extinguished by the redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Failed to pay 16 days accrued but untaken annual leave on termination; £1,317.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,318 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,022
- 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.