Case 6011814/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P A Cantwell v Basketball League Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6011814/2024
- Decision date
- 23 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P A Cantwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr P A Cantwell against The Basketball League Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,750.00. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,076.00.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,269.24. The judgment records no additional factual reasoning beyond those outcomes and figures.
The written notice on interest states that interest is payable on awards or determinations requiring payment of money other than costs or expenses if the sum is not paid in full within 14 days of the relevant decision day. It identifies 23 December 2024 as the relevant decision day, 24 December 2024 as the calculation day, and an interest rate of 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,750.00. | Upheld | — | £2,750 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract finding was limited to notice; the tribunal ordered damages of £5,076.00. | Upheld | — | £5,076 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,269.24. | Upheld | — | £1,269 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,095
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,076
- 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.