Case 2221546/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Akponah v Wilson James Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2221546/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott
- Panel members
- Dr V Weerasinghe, Ms S Coles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Akponah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint. It held that the claim, as framed, concerned alleged short notice and therefore amounted to a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal rather than a Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 wages claim. The tribunal also found that, even if the claim had been legally available, the circumstantial evidence supported the respondent's case that continuous employment began in July 2014 rather than July 2013.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy after Meta closed the Rathbone site and the respondent carried out a wider reorganisation reducing headcount. Redundancy was accepted as a potentially fair reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found the redundancy process reasonable overall. It accepted that collective and individual consultation took place, the selection criteria were permissible, the scoring and appeal process were fairly applied, and the claimant had access to information about alternative employment. The tribunal concluded that the respondent's actions fell within the range of reasonable responses and that the dismissal was not unfair. All Equality Act claims had been withdrawn, so the proceedings as a whole were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was found not well-founded. The tribunal held the claim was legally misconceived as framed because it was in substance a wrongful dismissal notice-pay claim rather than an unauthorised deduction from wages claim, and would also have failed on the facts about continuity of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found not well-founded. The tribunal found redundancy was the reason for dismissal and that the respondent acted reasonably overall. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant withdrew all claims under the Equality Act 2010 at the start of the final hearing. The judgment does not identify the specific protected characteristics or claim types pursued before withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.27(1) ERA 1996
- Delaney v Staples
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Post Office v Foley; HSBC Bank v Madden
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- band of reasonable responses
- s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996
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.