VadeLab
AllowedEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Unauthorised Wage Deductions: Claimant Wins Compensation at Employment Tribunal

Case No. 2405115/2025 · Judge Leach

📌 In brief

An employee won a case at the Employment Tribunal against their employer over unpaid wages, breaches in contract concerning notice periods, and lack of proper documentation about terms of employment. The tribunal ordered the employer to pay compensation.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must compensate an employee for unauthorised wage deductions and breaches of contract regarding notice pay and written statements of employment particulars.

Topics

unauthorised wage deductionsbreach of contract

Provisions

s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996section 38 Employment Act 2002

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully claimed for unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract and failure to provide employment particulars.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant successfully claimed for unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract regarding notice pay and failure to provide written statements of employment particulars. The Employment Tribunal awarded compensation accordingly.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 2405115/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Manchester On: 19 March 2026

Before: Employment Judge Leach

REPRESENTATION:

Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]

1. The claimant makes complaints of: - a. Unauthorised deductions from wages under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996. These complaints include ones for payments for accrued untaken holidays. b. Breach of contract – notice pay. c. Compensation under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written statement of employment particulars.

2. The claim succeeds to the following extent:

Unauthorised deduction from wages

A. Payment for accrued untaken annual leave from 5 April 2024 to 4 April 2025. (applying a percentage rate of 12.7% to wages) = £2012.24. LESS amount already paid=£1407.12. AMOUNT UNPAID = £605.12 (gross)

B. Payment for accrued untaken annual leave from 5 April 2025 to 25 April 2025 (applying same percentage). = £130.26(gross)

Case Number: 2405115/2025

C. Unpaid Wages 27 March 2025 to 25 April 2025 - £1025.64 LESS amount already paid of £659.34 = £366.30 (gross)

Breach of contract (failure to provide notice)

D. 1 week’s pay (agreed amount of a week’s pay is £366.30) = £366.30 (gross)

Failure to Provide written statement of employment particulars

E. Compensation awarded under section 38 EA 2002 –

Compensation of 3 weeks’ pay is awarded. 366.30 x 3 = £1098.90

Payments on the amounts under A, B, C and D above to be made less any tax and national insurance due. To the extent that the claimant receives gross amounts he is responsible for any tax and national insurance. Payment of the amount under E above to be made without deductions.

The Respondent is therefore ORDERED to pay to the claimant: [redacted] any tax and national insurance as noted above)

Approved by:

Employment Judge Leach

19 March 2026

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

29 April 2026

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Notes 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. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. 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 claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. 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:

www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/

Case Number: 2405115/2025

NOTICE

THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (INTEREST) ORDER 1990 ARTICLE 12

Case number: 2405115/2025

Name of case: [APPELLANT]

v [RESPONDENT] is payable when an Employment Tribunal makes an award or determination requiring one party to proceedings to pay a sum of money to another party, apart from sums representing costs or expenses.

No interest is payable if the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the date the Tribunal sent the written record of the decision to the parties. The date the Tribunal sent the written record of the decision to the parties is called the relevant decision day.

Interest starts to accrue from the day immediately after the relevant decision day. That is called the calculation day.

The rate of interest payable is the rate specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 on the relevant decision day. This is known as the stipulated rate of interest.

The Secretary of the Tribunal is required to give you notice of the relevant decision day, the calculation day, and the stipulated rate of interest in your case. They are as follows:

the relevant decision day in this case is: 29 April 2026

the calculation day in this case is:

30 April 2026

the stipulated rate of interest is:

8% per annum.

For the Employment Tribunal Office

📊 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

  • Employer made unauthorised wage deductions.
  • Employer failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay.
  • Employer breached the employment contract regarding notice periods.
  • Employer terminated without providing required notice period wages.
  • Employer did not provide full entitlements including any outstanding redundancy payment and notice pay as required by law.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The claimant won a case for unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract regarding notice pay, and failure to provide written statements of employment particulars.

Who was involved?

An employee (the claimant) brought the case against their employer.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant based on evidence that the employer had made unauthorised wage deductions and failed to provide proper notice pay and employment particulars.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Act 2002 were key provisions used in this case.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant's argument about unauthorised wage deductions and breaches of contract regarding notice pay and written statements was central to their success.

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

The decision was in favour of the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing similar issues should consider bringing a case at an Employment Tribunal to seek compensation.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing unauthorised wage deductions and lack of proper notice pay and employment particulars was crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the Employment Tribunal can often be appealed under certain conditions.

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.