Case 6043442/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Colin Smith v Bailey Fabrications Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6043442/2025
- Decision date
- 30 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Colin Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Colin Smith presented his claim against Bailey Fabrications Ltd in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 25 November 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal upheld the claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, redundancy pay, and unpaid holiday entitlement. It ordered payments of £1,365.76 gross for unauthorised wage deductions, £6,430.68 in damages for breach of contract, £10,927.08 as a redundancy payment, and £1,365.76 for unpaid holiday entitlement.
The total amount ordered was £20,089.28.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,366 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £6,431 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £10,927 |
| Holiday pay | Award for failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,366 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,089
- 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.