Case 6036557/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Cheryl Watson v Specialist Vocational Training Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6036557/2025
- Decision date
- 6 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Cheryl Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Cheryl Watson presented her claim in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 3 October 2025. Specialist Vocational Training Ltd failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Jones decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages concerning accrued holiday and ordered payment of £1,346 gross. It found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £6,461.52 in damages. She had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £14,700. The total ordered was £22,507.52.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The hearing listed for 16 March 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions concerning accrued holiday. The award is gross. | Upheld | — | £1,346 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £6,462 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £14,700 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,508
- 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.