Case 2300815/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J O’Neil v FGI Consultancy Ltd and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2300815/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J O’Neil
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J O'Neil brought an unlawful deduction from wages claim against FGI Consultancy Ltd and FGI Recruitment. The hearing took place at London South Employment Tribunal by CVP before Employment Judge Dyal. The Respondent did not attend and was not represented, and the Claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was a worker of the First Respondent within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996 at the relevant times. It also found that the First Respondent had made authorised deductions from the Claimant's wages in the sum of £640.
The tribunal ordered the First Respondent to pay £800 in total, made up of the £640 deductions from wages plus £160 grossing up. The reasons recorded that if the Claimant had been paid when due, no income tax would have been payable because he was under his personal allowance in that tax year, but he now had a marginal income tax rate of 20%, so the £640 was grossed up by a factor of 1.25. The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the First Respondent had made authorised deductions from the Claimant's wages in the sum of £640. The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed. | Upheld | — | £800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £800
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230 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.