Case 6036361/2025 · Employment Tribunal
C Martin v Williams & spenceley limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6036361/2025
- Decision date
- 2 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 2 October 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £523.54 gross. It further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of 90 days notice and ordered damages of £5,054.88 gross, and that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £421.24. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £842.49 gross.
The hearing previously listed for 11 February 2026 was cancelled. The judgment was approved by S Nuut, Legal Officer, on 28 January 2026.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross amount of £523.54 awarded for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £524 |
| Breach of contract | Damages of £5,054.88 for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of 90 days notice. | Upheld | — | £5,055 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment of £421.24. | Upheld | — | £421 |
| Holiday pay | Gross amount of £842.49 for unpaid holiday entitlement. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £842 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,842
- 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.