Case 6025336/2025 · Employment Tribunal
M Ivy v Customer Care Company Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6025336/2025
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Ivy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented at the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 7 July 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Cookson determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing. The hearing previously listed for 16 December 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,083.33 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £961.54.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £3,044.87 in total. The judgment was approved on 6 October 2025 and sent to the parties on 18 November 2025, with a separate notice issued regarding interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; awarded £2,083.33 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,083 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £961.54. | Upheld | — | £962 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,045
- 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.