Case 6017580/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Mola v Barworks Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017580/2025
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lambert Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Mola
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages. It found that Mr Mola was entitled to receive normal pay during his suspension, and the parties agreed the gross sum of £2,128.28, subject to PAYE deductions.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it did not have jurisdiction: Mr Mola did not have two years' service at the effective date of termination as required by Section 108 of the ERA. It also dismissed the Section 27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation complaint as not well-founded.
The tribunal found that Barworks Ltd was entitled to dismiss Mr Mola for gross misconduct. His wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claim was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to normal pay during suspension; the parties agreed the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £2,128 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant did not have two years' service at the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal stated the complaint under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment described this as a claim for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract and dismissed it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,128
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 108 of the ERA
- Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
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.