Employment Tribunal Rules Employer to Pay Unpaid Wages and Notice Period
📌 In brief
In this case, an Employment Tribunal found in favour of a worker who claimed unpaid wages and breach of contract due to non-payment during their one-week notice period. However, the claim for redundancy pay was dismissed because the worker had been employed for less than two years.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must pay an employee their notice period wages if they are not paid during a statutory one-week notice period.
📖 What the law says
An employer cannot deduct money from an employee's wages unless it is required by law or agreed upon in writing by the employee. Any shortfall in wages due to the employer's mistake does not count as an unauthorized deduction.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's claims for unauthorised wage deductions and breach of contract were successful, while the redundancy payment claim was struck out.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer must pay the worker for unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract regarding notice period pay. The redundancy payment was struck out as the employment duration did not meet statutory requirements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
Case Nos: 3303873/2025 and 6012101/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
1. The claim form was sent to the respondent in accordance with rule 16 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024. If it was not sent to the respondent’s registered address, it was sent to an appropriate address.
2. The respondent did not present a response to the claim. The claimant provided further information by correspondence to the Tribunal, upon which a determination could properly be made of the claims set out below pursuant to rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.
3. The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages (Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13) is well founded. The respondent must pay to the claimant within 14 days £1040 net of tax.
4. The claim for breach of contract for the claimant’s notice pay is well founded (Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994). The claimant’s statutory notice period was one week. The claimant was not paid for their notice period. The respondent must pay to the claimant within 14 days: £ 520 (net).
5. The claim for a redundancy payment (Employment Rights Act 1996 section 135) is struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 as the claimant was not employed by the respondent for two years or more as required by section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996 and he did not reply to the strike out warning letter that the Tribunal sent him about this on 16 January 2025.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Case Nos: 3303873/2025 and 6012101/2025
Date 9 December 2025
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
........19 December 20205
..........
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment- tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
Case Nos: 3303873/2025 and 3307666/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
2. The respondent did not present a response to the claim. The claimant provided further information by correspondence to the Tribunal on 19 and 22 December 2025, upon which a determination could properly be made of the claims set out below pursuant to rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.
3. The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages (Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13) is well founded. The respondent must pay to the claimant within 14 days £520 net of tax.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Date 10 February 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
.......21/4/2026...
...........
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Wins Redundancy Payment, No Notice Pay Due to Mitigation
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Decision: Unfair Dismissal Rejected, Wrongful Dismissal…
- Employment Tribunal Holiday Pay Allowed, Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Unfair Dismissal and Notice Pay Clai…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Whistleblowing Claims Rejected, Unfair Dismissal Uphel…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer to Pay Unpaid Wages and More
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Wins Unauthorised Wage Deduction Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Orders Employer to Pay Unpaid Wages and Holiday Pay
- Employment Tribunal Worker Wins Unfair Dismissal Case at Employment Tribunal
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 pay the employee their outstanding wages, including the notice period, when due according to employment laws.| An employer is required to provide notice pay and other entitlements upon termination of employment as per statutory requirements.| The claimant's continuous employment meets the necessary duration for eligibility under unfair dismissal statutes.| An employer cannot unfairly dismiss an employee for making protected disclosures or constructive dismissal based on such disclosures.| An employer must not make unauthorized deductions from wages without lawful justification.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A claim for unfair dismissal is struck out if the claimant has not been continuously employed by the employer for two years ending with the effective date of termination.|
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal ruled in favour of the worker on claims for unauthorised wage deductions and breach of contract but struck out the claim for redundancy payment.
Who was involved?
A worker (the claimant) brought a case against their employer (Total Home Delivery Limited).
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal found that the employer had to pay back unauthorised wage deductions and notice period wages as required by law. The redundancy payment was struck out due to insufficient employment duration.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13, Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.
What argument mattered most?
The claimant's arguments regarding unauthorised wage deductions and breach of contract for notice period pay were the central issues.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the worker on claims for unauthorised wage deductions and breach of contract, but against them on redundancy payment.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing similar issues should consult legal advice to understand their rights regarding unpaid wages and notice period pay.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tribunal relied on correspondence from the claimant providing further information about the claims.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions can often be appealed, but specific rules apply depending on the case details and time limits.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving employment disputes.