Case 6023097/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Canham v Labelneeds Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023097/2024
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Canham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, detriment on the ground of having made a protected disclosure, and unauthorised deductions from wages. The hearing took place at Cardiff over three days in August 2025 before Employment Judge S Jenkins sitting alone, with the Claimant in person and Mrs S Maslen for the Respondent.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaints of unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded in part, with £28.14 ordered to be paid to the Claimant.
Reasons were given orally; written reasons were not provided in the published judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment on the ground of having made a protected disclosure failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded in part; £28.14 awarded. | Upheld | — | £28 |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment on the ground of having made a protected disclosure failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded in part; £28.14 awarded. | Upheld | — | £28 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28
- 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.