Case 6020770/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Taunton Roast Company Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6020770/2025
- Decision date
- 4 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Smail determined the claim in chambers on 4 March 2026 after the Respondent, The Taunton Roast Company Ltd, failed to enter a Response to the claim brought by Miss R. Cunningham. The Judge upheld the Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from earnings, holiday pay, and compensation for failure to be issued with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a grand total of £3,185 forthwith. This comprised £480 as a basic award and £250 as a compensatory award for unfair dismissal, £165 for unpaid pension contributions, £1,330 for holiday pay (the tribunal noting that only one year may be claimed), and £960 representing four weeks' pay for the failure to provide a written statement.
The judgment was sent to the parties on 18 March 2026. No legal tests or authorities were expressly cited in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £480 and compensatory award £250 (total £730) awarded for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £730 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid pension contributions awarded as unauthorised deductions from earnings. | Upheld | — | £165 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay awarded; tribunal noted only one year may be claimed. | Upheld | — | £1,330 |
| Other | Compensation for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment (4 weeks' pay). | Upheld | — | £960 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,185
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £480
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £250
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.