Case 6013555/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Lawley v Vmaxbitz.com Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6013555/2024
- Decision date
- 17 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Lawley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not defend the claim, and Employment Judge Heap determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the tribunal could properly make a determination on that basis, and the hearing listed for 24 January 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and awarded £1,269.23 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,538.48 gross for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,538.48, that holiday entitlement had not been paid and awarded £898.59, and that fuel expenses due under the contract had not been paid and awarded £426.39. The total award was £7,671.17.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,269 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages awarded in respect of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,538 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,538 |
| Holiday pay | Award for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £899 |
| Breach of contract | Award for unpaid fuel expenses under the contract of employment. | Upheld | — | £426 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,671
- 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.