Case 2302801/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Addicott Evans v ProductsOne BV — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302801/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Addicott Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge E Fowell, sitting alone at Croydon by video on 8 October 2024, found that the claimant Mr Paul Addicott Evans had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages by the respondent ProductsOne BV in the sum of £15,213.02. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not appear.
The sum awarded comprised unpaid salary for February 2024 of £14,333.33, employer's pension contributions of £377.01 for December 2023 and January 2024, and employee's pension contributions of £502.68 for the same two months. The tribunal recorded that the award falls within the definition of earnings at section 62 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, so the respondent is to treat it as wages and account to HMRC for tax and national insurance, with the net amount paid directly to the claimant.
The tribunal noted, by reference to the claimant's February 2024 pay statement, that the net sum payable was £7,947.73. Reasons were given orally; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within the prescribed period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award comprises February 2024 salary of £14,333.33, employer's pension contributions of £377.01 and employee's pension contributions of £502.68 for December 2023 and January 2024. Respondent did not appear. Net sum payable per claimant's February 2024 pay statement noted as £7,947.73. | Upheld | — | £15,213 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,213
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 62 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
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.