Case 1405546/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Irons v 3Tone Music Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405546/2023
- Decision date
- 13 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Irons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr T Irons became an employee of 3Tone Music Ltd when he came to the United Kingdom on 15 January 2023 and remained so until the relationship ended on 25 November 2023. It accepted contemporaneous emails and WhatsApp messages showing that, before he moved, the parties had discussed a year-long arrangement, a contract, and payment at a rate equivalent to £30,000 per year. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that no employment or work relationship existed.
Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, Stephenson and Carmichael, the tribunal held that there was a contract of employment with sufficient mutuality of obligation and control. It found that Mr Irons was expected to provide musical, producer and engineering services, that equipment was provided at the respondent's expense, that he was not in business on his own account, and that he was subject to the respondent's control over his expenses. It also found that he took no annual leave because he was unaware he could do so and was not allowed to take paid leave.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent had paid £11,923.33 over the period, but found that £615.11 of that sum was not remuneration and instead related to business expenses incurred on the respondent's behalf. After crediting £11,308.22 against the agreed annual salary, it ordered payment of £13,691.78 for unauthorised deductions from wages. It also held that the respondent could not set off accommodation, studio and equipment costs in the absence of a written contractual basis, and it upheld the breach of contract claim arising from the 12 April 2023 written agreement for the parting fee, moving invoice, moving costs and storage costs. The judgment section orders £2,692.71 for holiday pay and the total award was £20,716.30.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated £11,923.33 as payments toward wages, but excluded £615.11 found to be business expenses connected with the claimant's Los Angeles trip, leaving £11,308.22 to be credited against the agreed £30,000 annual salary. | Upheld | — | £13,692 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant took no annual leave. The reasons at paragraph 51 calculate £2,692.31, but the judgment section orders £2,692.71; the amount entered here follows the operative judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,693 |
| Breach of contract | This related to the written agreement dated 12 April 2023 for a £2,500 parting fee, £1,205.11 moving invoice, £600 moving costs and storage costs at £26.70 per week for up to four weeks. The tribunal found the claimant gave consideration by returning to Los Angeles in connection with the visa process. | Upheld | — | £4,332 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,716
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
- Stephenson v Delphi Diesel Systems Ltd
- Carmichael v National Power
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs. 13, 14 and 16
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 art. 3
- Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s.3(2)
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.