Case 6022601/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Wells v Cityshuttle Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022601/2024
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Wells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge dealt with the claim under rule 22 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, a determination was made on the papers and the hearing listed for 7 May 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered the respondent to pay £7,500 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,750 gross in damages.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £2,025.04 gross. The total payable to the claimant was therefore £13,275.04, and the judgment notes that the claimant must account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of amounts received from the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £7,500 gross. | Upheld | — | £7,500 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £3,750 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,750 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £2,025.04 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,025 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,275
- 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.