Case 2401723/2025 · Employment Tribunal
S O’Connor v PVTEC Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401723/2025
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 9 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that judgment could properly be entered under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It held that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in the period 29 November 2024 to 3 February 2025, and ordered payment of £3,072.00 as the gross sum, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
The tribunal also found that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £256.00 as damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The total sum awarded was £3,328.00. The judgment includes a separate notice on interest, but no interest amount was awarded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint well-founded. The award was stated to be the gross sum, and the claimant was held responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £3,072 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the notice pay complaint well founded and awarded damages calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £256 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,328
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.