Case 6021958/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J Redfern v Forthelions08 Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021958/2025
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Redfern
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 12 June 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Adkinson determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £26.55 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £750.53.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had not provided the claimant with written particulars of employment. It recorded that there was no mitigation for that failure and ordered compensation of four weeks’ pay, assessed at £1,269.84. Future hearings were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £26.55 gross. | Upheld | — | £27 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £750.53. | Upheld | — | £751 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent did not provide the claimant with written particulars of employment, noted there was no mitigation for the failure, and ordered compensation of four weeks’ pay of £1,269.84. | Upheld | — | £1,270 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,047
- 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.