Case 6008668/2025 · Employment Tribunal
M Felton v Aytac Foods Distribution Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008668/2025
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Felton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 13 March 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,017.19 in respect of unfair dismissal, made up of a basic award of £707.26 and a compensatory award of £1,309.93.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £15,133.88 gross for unpaid wages. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Batten on 1 October 2025 and sent to the parties on 5 November 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Award comprised a basic award of £707.26 and a compensatory award of £1,309.93. | Upheld | — | £2,017 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ordered as gross unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £15,134 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,151
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £707
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,310
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.