Case 6016325/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In-person For the v DGS Partnership CYF — 2023
- Case reference
- 6016325/2025
- Decision date
- 2 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr D.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In-person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting as Employment Judge Mr D. Harris alone, held a remote hearing on 27 October 2025 via Cloud Video Platform. The Claimant, Mr T. Roberts, appeared in person; the Respondent, DGS Partnership CYF, did not appear. The judgment amended the Respondent's name to DGS Partnership CYF and dispensed with service of the amended proceedings.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was continuously employed by the Respondent as a Head Chef from 1 July 2024 until he was made redundant on 12 March 2025. At the date of redundancy, the Claimant was owed £3,245.44 (gross) in unpaid wages.
Judgment was entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for unpaid wages in the sum of £3,245.44 (gross). The judgment does not address any further remedy components such as basic award, compensatory award, injury to feelings, or interest.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for unpaid wages in the sum of £3,245.44 (gross). The judgment does not expressly label the cause of action as 'unlawful deduction from wages' or 'breach of contract'; the gov.uk listing indicates both categories. Classified here as unlawful_deduction_wages based on the tribunal's reference to 'unpaid wages'. | Upheld | — | £3,245 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,245
- 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.