Case 6017281/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Canavan v Birmingham Hospitality Holdings Limited (previously known as Stout & Stone Inns Limited) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017281/2025
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Canavan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused an application made on 31 October 2025, apparently on behalf of the respondent, for reconsideration of the judgment made on 11 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 10 October 2025.
The judge recorded that the original judgment was issued after no response was submitted by the respondent and was not made at a hearing. The application said the respondent did not receive notice of hearing, but the judge found that this did not give the application a reasonable prospect of success because the judgment had been made on the material available after no response was filed.
The application did not provide a response to the claim or details of any defence, including why it was said that the claimant had been paid wages found to have been subject to an unauthorised deduction. The judge concluded that reconsideration was not necessary in the interests of justice and refused the application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reconsideration judgment records that wages had been found to have been the subject of an unauthorised deduction in the original default judgment. It does not state the amount awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 70
- rule 70(2)
- rule 3
- interests of justice
- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- overriding objective
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.