Case 6021471/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Bamber v Sans Pareil Clothing Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021471/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Bamber
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester CVP hearing on 14 March 2025, Employment Judge Dunlop held that Mr C Bamber was a worker, but not an employee, of Sans Pareil Clothing Limited. On that basis, the claim for wrongful dismissal notice pay failed, and the claim for a redundancy payment also failed.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. It extended time for presentation of that claim to 10 December 2024 and ordered the respondent to pay £9,432, described as nine months' wages at £1,048 per month.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining complaints were dismissed, but the extracted text does not identify those complaints specifically. The written record also included the standard tribunal interest notice, stating that if the award remains unpaid after 14 days, interest would accrue at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was a worker, but not an employee, so the wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim because the claimant was not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. Time was extended to 10 December 2024, and the award was nine months' wages at £1,048 per month. | Upheld | — | £9,432 |
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's remaining complaints were dismissed, but the extracted text does not identify them specifically. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,432
- 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.