Case 6011760/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Tripodi v Hexaform Construction Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6011760/2025
- Decision date
- 23 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Price
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Tripodi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal ordered that Hexaform Construction Limited had made unauthorised deductions of £2,000 from Mr I Tripodi's wages and had failed to pay £1,000 for 13 days of accrued annual leave upon termination. It also ordered by consent payment of £753.16 for expenses owed under the employment contract.
The tribunal found that Mr Tripodi was dismissed in breach of contract because he was not given the four weeks' notice to which he was contractually entitled, and awarded £4,000 in damages. It also found that £4,017.10 remained unpaid for further expenses owing under the employment contract. The total sum payable was £11,770.26.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ordered by consent. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Holiday pay | Ordered by consent for 13 days of accrued annual leave unpaid upon termination. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant was dismissed without the four weeks' notice to which he was contractually entitled. | Upheld | — | £4,000 |
| Breach of contract | Expenses owed under the employment contract; ordered by consent. | Upheld | — | £753 |
| Breach of contract | Further expenses owed under the employment contract. | Upheld | — | £4,017 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,770
- across all upheld claims
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.