Case 6022817/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Palin v The Weaver’s Whistle Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022817/2024
- Decision date
- 25 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Palin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Shotter decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and the hearing listed for 29 April 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £812.50 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, so the wrongful dismissal claim was well-founded, and awarded £1,750.00 gross in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued but untaken holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £175.00 gross. The judgment also records that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance payable on the sums awarded.
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 an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £812.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £813 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,750.00 gross in damages. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued but untaken holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £175.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £175 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,738
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
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.