Employment Tribunal Decision: Unfair Dismissal and Wage Issues
📌 In brief
In this case, an Employment Tribunal heard claims from two workers against their employer regarding unfair dismissal, underpayment of wages, and other issues. The judge ruled in favour of the workers on some points but not others.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must provide a written statement of employment particulars and comply with the Working Time Regulations regarding annual leave and wage payments.
📖 What the law says
Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 98 outlines the criteria for determining whether a dismissal is fair or unfair. It requires the employer to provide the reason for the dismissal and prove that the reason falls within certain categories, such as capability, qualifications, conduct, redundancy, or a breach of duty or restriction. Additionally, the fairness of the dismissal depends on whether the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances, considering the size and resources of the business.
The Equality Act 2010, Section 13 defines direct discrimination as treating someone less favorably due to a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, marriage, civil partnership, race, or sex. There are specific provisions for age, disability, and sex that outline exceptions or additional considerations.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Employment Tribunal ruled on unfair dismissal, underpayment of wages, and other employment issues.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge ruled that the employer was liable for ordinary unfair dismissal, underpayment of wages, and failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
Case Number: 2306381/2025 2306402/2025
Page 1 of 2
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: [redacted]
(2) Mr. [RESPONDENT]. [RESPONDENT]
Respondent: [redacted] London South Employment Tribunal ([NAME]) On:
3rd, 4th, 5th and 15th December 2025 Before: Employment Judge Sudra sitting with non-legal members [NAME] and Mr. [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT]: Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that:
(i) ‘Ordinary’ unfair dismissal is well founded and is upheld ([NAME] Claimant). (ii) Constructive unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed ([APPELLANT] Claimant). (iii) Unauthorised deductions from wages (in respect of extra shifts) is well founded and upheld ([NAME]).
Case Number: 2306381/2025 2306402/2025
Page 2 of 2
(iv) Accrued but outstanding entitlement to annual leave (in respect of extra shifts) is well founded and upheld ([NAME]). (v) Not being provided with a written statement of employment particulars is well founded and is upheld ([NAME]).
Employment Judge Sudra
Date: 15th December 2025
Judgment sent to parties on: Date: 7th January 2026
For The Tribunal Office
Case Number: 2306381/2025 & 2306402/2025
Page 1 of 2
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: [redacted]
(2) Mr. [RESPONDENT]. [RESPONDENT]
Respondent: [redacted] London South Employment Tribunal On:
24th April 2026 Before: Employment Judge Sudra sitting with non-legal members [NAME] and Mr. [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT]: Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
REMEDY JUDGMENT
1. The Respondent shall pay compensation to the [APPELLANT] Claimant of £7,464.01p made up as follows: a. Underpayment of wages (taking into account the National Living Wage), £4,869.60p; b. Loss of 3% employer pension contributions, £146.09p; and c. Unpaid accrued annual leave, £2,448.32p; d. Amounting in total to £7,464.01p
Case Number: 2306381/2025 & 2306402/2025
Page 2 of 2
2. The Respondent shall pay compensation to the [NAME] Claimant of £12,526.54p made up as follows: a. For unfair dismissal, a basic award of £1,321.32p and a compensatory award of £10,130.12p amounting to £11,451.44p; (Breakdown of compensatory award: 440.44 x 23 = £10,130.12 Loss of statutory rights: £500.00p [NAME] reduction 10% Acas uplift 20% Four weeks’ pay in respect of the employer’s failure to provide full and accurate written particulars: £440.44p x 4 = £1,761.76p Contributory fault 30%) b. Underpayment of wages (taking into account the National Living Wage), £2,135.54p; c. Loss of 3% employer pension contributions, £64.07p; and d. Unpaid accrued annual leave, £1,040.53p. e. Amounting in total to £12,526.54p.
_____________________________
Employment Judge Sudra
Date: 24th APRIL 2026
Judgment sent to parties on: 18th May 2026
For The Tribunal Office
Case Numbers: 2306381/2025 and 2306402/2025 1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: [redacted]
(2) Mr. [RESPONDENT]. [RESPONDENT]
Respondent: [redacted] London South Employment Tribunal On:
28th April 2026 Before: Employment Judge Sudra
JUDGMENT on COSTS
The Claimants’ application for a Preparation Time Order under Rule 76 is not well founded and stands dismissed.
REASONS
1. This is the determination of the Claimants’ application for costs, by way of a Preparation Time Order, made on 27th April 2026.
2. Rule 74(3) provides:
‘(3) The Tribunal may also make a costs order or a preparation time order (as appropriate) on the application of a party where a party has been in breach of any order, rule or practice direction or where a hearing has been postponed or adjourned.’
Case Numbers: 2306381/2025 and 2306402/2025 2
3. The Claimants pursues their application on grounds of the Respondent’s breach of Case Management Orders.
Procedural History
4. On 19th August 2025, Employment Judge Tsamados made Case Management Orders at a Preliminary Hearing.
5. The Claimants’ position is that the Respondent failed to comply with the Case Management Orders made which resulted in their lay representative having to undertake extra preparation and that,
‘This may have been reduced if any CMO’s had been complied with as no paperwork was ever received until 48hours before the hearing and then only half the bundle. Despite the respondents representative changing (4times) I communicated with all parties on all occasions.’
6. The Final Hearing proceeded on 3rd December 2023 and the matter was listed for three days. On the [APPELLANT] day a file of documents had not been prepared in the orthodox fashion and there was a dispute between the parties as to where the fault lay. The Tribunal adjourned until 14:00 on the [NAME] day for the parties to produce a joint, cogent, file of documents – which they did. The Tribunal was then able to conclude the Liability Hearing within the trial window.
Issues
7. The issues that I have to determine are:
(a) Whether the threshold for a costs order has been met; (b) whether a costs order should be made; and (c) if so, in what amount
Case Numbers: 2306381/2025 and 2306402/2025 3
Has the Threshold for a Costs Order Been Met?
8. Based on the Claimants’ application the answer to this question must be ‘no.’ The Claimants’ application centres on alleged failures by the Respondent to timeously produce documents or a file of documents.
9. It cannot be said that the claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success at the start of the litigation.
10. In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the threshold for a Preparation Time Order has been met.
Should a Costs Order be Made?
11. The case of [NAME] v. [NAME] 2012 ICR 420 makes clear that there does not have to be a direct causal link between the unreasonable conduct and the costs awarded. Rather, in exercising its discretion, the Tribunal should have regard to the nature, gravity and effect of the unreasonable conduct. I am satisfied that the Respondent’s behaviour has been unduly unreasonable and in all the circumstances, I do not consider it just that a costs order should be made. Costs are an exception and not the rule in the Employment Tribunal ([NAME] v. [NAME] UK Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1479, the Co).
How Much Should be Awarded in Costs?
12. Due to my findings (supra) I do not need to address this question.
Conclusion
13. No award of costs is made and the application is refused.
Case Numbers: 2306381/2025 and 2306402/2025 4
Employment Judge Sudra
Date: 28th APRIL 2026
Sent to the parties on: 18th May 2026
For the Tribunal Office:
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Successful: Employer Found Unreasonable
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Succeeds at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employer's Conduct Leads to Constructive Unfair Dismissal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Case Due to Administrative Erro…
- Employment Tribunal Employee Successfully Claims Unfair Dismissal at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Case: Employer Found Liable at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected; Wages Compensation Awarded
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Against an Online Retailer Rejected by Employment Tr…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant’s Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal Claims Rejected by Employment Trib…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal Claim Over Second Job
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal Claim
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- An employer must provide a written statement of employment particulars to an employee who has been dismissed unfairly.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- An employer may dismiss an employee for gross misconduct if they are found to be working a second full-time job without disclosure, breaching their contract
- An employer may dismiss an employee summarily if there is evidence of gross misconduct.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided that ordinary unfair dismissal was well-founded for one worker, while constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed for another.
Who was involved?
Two workers and their employer were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court considered evidence and arguments presented by both sides before making its decision based on employment laws.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Key provisions included the Employment Rights Act 1996, Equality Act 2010, and Working Time Regulations 1998.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The central reasoning focused on whether the employer had provided a written statement of employment particulars and adhered to wage laws.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly in favour of the workers, with some claims dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing similar issues should seek legal advice to understand their rights and options.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence such as employment contracts, wage records, and emails were likely important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to consult with a qualified solicitor for advice on employment disputes.