(1) Mr S Edwards (2) Miss L Su v S’Investec LLC and 2 others — 2025

On its own initiative, the tribunal proposed adding the third respondent as a party under rule 35 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, and the parties agreed. It found that neither claimant had a contractual relationship with the first or second respondents, so the claims against those respondents were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal also recorded that Mr Edwards had not presented his complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract within the applicable time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable for him to do so, and that the claims were presented within a further reasonable period.

The tribunal found that both claimants were employees and workers of the third respondent at the relevant time. It upheld both claimants' complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract. It also found that the third respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, so the compensation awards were increased by 10% under section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The uplift did not apply to the award made under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars.

The third respondent was ordered to pay Mr Edwards £16,258.20 in respect of all his claims, without the judgment breaking that figure down by head. It was ordered to pay Miss Su £21,326.74, comprising £15,863.99 for unlawful deductions from wages, £1,185.77 for breach of contract (notice pay), £1,704.98 as the Acas uplift, and £2,572 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The latter figure was four weeks' gross pay, subject to the statutory cap, and the judgment records a slightly different oral figure because the uplift did not apply to that award.