Case 6008927/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lyall v Spray Foam Tech Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008927/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lyall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 22 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and did not attend the hearing on 12 February 2025. Employment Judge Yardley heard the matter by CVP in London South and noted that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons not provided unless requested.
The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was found well-founded. The tribunal awarded the claimant £1,000 as damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay because of the likelihood that the sum would be subject to tax as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was also found well-founded. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in respect of unpaid commission for the period 1 June to 17 June 2024, and awarded £787.50, being the gross sum deducted. The tribunal recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim found well-founded. Damages were assessed using gross pay because the tribunal considered the claimant was likely to have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded for unpaid commission covering 1 June to 17 June 2024. The tribunal awarded the gross sum deducted, and noted the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £788 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,788
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22
- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.