Case 6010774/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Colbourne v Jpc Capital Property Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010774/2024
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Colbourne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 5 September 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
On the substance of the claim, the tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,500 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,932.24 net in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,307.68 gross. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Cadney on 3 February 2025, and the order was sent to the parties on 11 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,500 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,500 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,932.24 net. | Upheld | — | £1,932 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,307.68 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,308 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,740
- 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.