Case 6027288/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Slifkin v Bay Freight Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6027288/2025
- Decision date
- 30 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Slifkin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found Mr D Slifkin’s claim for unfair constructive dismissal against Bay Freight Limited well founded under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment does not set out the underlying factual findings. Remedy remained to be determined, with a three-hour hearing listed by CVP at 10am on 29 June 2026.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal after Bay Freight Limited agreed to pay Mr Slifkin £341.72 within 14 days of the judgment. The judgment records this agreed payment but does not quantify an award for unfair constructive dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal after the respondent agreed to pay £341.72 within 14 days of the judgment. The sum was recorded as an agreed payment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim for unfair constructive dismissal succeeded. Remedy remained to be determined at a hearing listed for 29 June 2026. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.