Case 6017232/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Garstang v A & F Haulage Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017232/2025
- Decision date
- 10 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Garstang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 10 May 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Bax determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, had dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £652.50 gross for unauthorised deductions, £742 gross as damages for breach of contract on notice, and £1,897.50 gross for unpaid holiday entitlement.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; awarded £652.50 gross under rule 22 determination after respondent failed to file a valid response. | Upheld | — | £653 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £742 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £742 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; £1,897.50 gross awarded. Classified as holiday_pay (the Working Time Regulations holiday pay component flagged by the listing). | Upheld | — | £1,898 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,292
- 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.