Case 6009820/2025 · Employment Tribunal
L Carroll v SD Administration Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009820/2025
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
Parties
2 namedL Carroll
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Leach determined this Rule 22 default judgment after the respondent (SD Administration Ltd) failed to present a valid response on time. The claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 21 March 2025.
The Judge found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay a basic award of £14,913.57 and a compensatory award of £1,187.60. The compensatory award was calculated as 39 weeks' loss of net basic salary from the effective date of termination (6 January 2025) to date of judgment (£20,460.96), less mitigation earnings of £19,273.36 from new employment in that period.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to Part II of the ERA 1996 was upheld for the period 20 November 2023 to 5 January 2025 at £634.62/week, with the respondent ordered to pay £37,351.92 gross. The total award was £53,453.09.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £16,101 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £37,352 |
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £16,101 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £37,352 |
Legal tests applied
2 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £53,453
- Basic award
- £14,914
- Compensatory award
- £1,188
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.