VadeLab
Allowed in PartEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages, Not Pension Failures

Case No. 6029585/2025 · Judge D Massarella

📌 In brief

An employment tribunal ruled that an employer must compensate for unauthorised wage deductions but lacks jurisdiction over pension contribution failures. The claimant successfully recovered £26,665.29 without any deductions.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must compensate an employee for unauthorised wage deductions but is not liable under employment tribunals for failing to make pension contributions.

Topics

wage deductionsemployment tribunal

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully recovered unauthorised wage deductions, but pension contribution claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant successfully recovered unauthorised deductions from wages between February and July 2025. However, the employment tribunal dismissed claims regarding an employer's failure to make pension contributions due to lack of jurisdiction.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

Case Number: 6029585/2025

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

[COMPANY] (in public, by CVP)

On:

18 March 2026

Before:

Employment Judge D Massarella

Representation

For the Claimant: [redacted] For the Respondent: [redacted]

The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:

1. The Respondent having conceded that it made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages between February and July 2025, by consent it is ordered to pay to the Claimant the net sum of £26,665.29, without any deductions; the Respondent shall be liable for any tax and national insurance on this sum;

2. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims in relation to an employer’s failure to make pension contributions; that claim is dismissed.

Employment Judge D Massarella

Dated: 18 March 2026

Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.

Case Number: 6029585/2025

2

Public access to employment tribunal decisions All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s).

Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/

Case Number: 6029585/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

[COMPANY] (in public, by CVP)

On:

18 March 2026

Before:

Employment Judge Massarella

Representation

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

THE CORRECTION TO THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT IS SHOWN IN BLOCK TYPE UNDERLINED ABOVE. The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. the Respondent having conceded that it made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages between February and July 2025, by consent it is ordered to pay to the Claimant the net sum of £26,665.29, without any deductions; the Respondent shall be liable for any tax and national insurance on this sum; 2. the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims in relation to an employer’s failure to make pension contributions;

Case Number: 6029585/2025

that claim is dismissed.

_____________________________

Employment Judge Massarella

Dated: 5 May 2026

Case Number: 6029585/2025

THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE RULES 2024

Under the provisions of Rule 67 of the 2024 Rules, the judgment on liability and remedy, sent to the parties on 27 March 2026, is corrected as set out in block type underlined in the header to the judgment, replacing ‘[RESPONDENT]’ with ‘[RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] [RESPONDENT] in the name of the Respondent.

Signed: Judge Massarella Employment Judge of the Tribunal

Dated: 5 May 2026

Important note to parties: Any dates for the filing of appeals or reviews are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date of the original judgment, or original judgment with reasons, when appealing.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 act reasonably when dismissing an employee for substantial reasons, considering all relevant factors and making reasonable adjustments for disabled employees to avoid discriminatory dismissal. An employer must comply with statutory requirements regarding wages, holidays, employment documentation, and the ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • An employer may dismiss an employee based on grounds later exonerated by a professional body like the NMC. A claimant who fails to attend a scheduled Employment Tribunal hearing will have their claims dismissed.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ordered the employer to pay back unauthorised wage deductions and dismissed claims about failing to make pension contributions.

Who was involved?

A worker (the claimant) and their employer (the respondent).

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal ruled in favour of compensating for unauthorised wages but lacked jurisdiction over pension issues.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws were cited, focusing on the facts presented.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The employer conceded to unauthorised wage deductions and the tribunal's lack of jurisdiction for pension claims.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

For the claimant regarding wage deductions, but against on pension contributions.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone can recover unauthorised wages but may need to seek other avenues for pension issues.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tribunal relied on the employer's concession regarding wage deductions.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from employment tribunals can often be appealed to an Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.