Case 6025932/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Nick Naylor v Fantastic Fences Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6025932/2025
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nick Naylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 11 July 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing on the merits.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,635.38 gross. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £1,856.04, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, awarding £1,007.33.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £6,499.25 in total. The judgment noted that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; respondent ordered to pay £3635.38 gross under rule 22 after failing to file a valid response. | Upheld | — | £3,635 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £1856.04 awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,856 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; £1007.33 awarded. Categorised here as holiday_pay (Working Time Regulations holiday claim). | Upheld | — | £1,007 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,499
- 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.