Case 3200467/2025 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Joel Alexander Ithier (2) Mr Christopher Weir v Gracechurch Family Office Limited (amended to add Limited) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200467/2025
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Misra KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Joel Alexander Ithier (2) Mr Christopher Weir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge E Misra KC heard this undefended multiple claim for unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996, brought by two claimants who were not paid any salary for the period 1 March 2025 to 31 October 2025. The respondent did not file an ET3, did not attend and was not represented. The judge found the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures and applied a 25% uplift under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to all heads of award except pension. The First Claimant Mr Joel Ithier was awarded £150,000 inclusive of a £30,000 uplift plus £3,600 pension, totalling £153,600; the Second Claimant Mr Christopher Weir was awarded £108,833.30 inclusive of a £21,666.66 uplift plus £2,600 pension, totalling £111,433.30 (attaching to that case reference). Payment ordered within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First Claimant Mr Joel Ithier: £150,000 (inclusive of 25% ACAS uplift £30,000) plus £3,600 pension. Wholesale failure to pay salary 1 March 2025 to 31 October 2025. Undefended. | Upheld | — | £153,600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £153,600
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures
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.