Case 2300689/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Joe Best v Kosy Living Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2300689/2026
- Decision date
- 2 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Joe Best
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningKosy Living Limited did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Ramsden decided under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined. The Tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from Joe Best’s wages between 1 April and 30 November 2025 totalling £24,000 and from a bonus totalling £20,000, producing a gross wages award of £44,000.
The Tribunal also found that the deductions caused Mr Best to incur £413.16 in overdraft fees and bank charges between June 2025 and June 2026, which it held recoverable under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that Mr Best was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £923.07 gross in damages. The total payable was £45,336.23 gross, with Mr Best responsible for accounting to HMRC for any sums owed on payments received under the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award comprises £44,000 gross for wage and bonus deductions and £413.16 for consequential overdraft fees and bank charges recoverable under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £44,413 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £923 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £45,336
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 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.