Case 1401425/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Owen Sanders 1st v 2nd Respondent: Mr Michael Powell M & S Powell Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401425/2024
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sanger REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Owen Sanders 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It held that the Second Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period between 6 November and 26 December 2023.
The Second Respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £176.04. The claim against the First Respondent was dismissed, and the written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found well-founded against the Second Respondent for the period between 6 November and 26 December 2023. | Upheld | — | £176 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim against the First Respondent was dismissed. The judgment does not give separate written reasons beyond the short judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £176
- across all upheld claims
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.