Case 3300761/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Peacock v Berkshire Music Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300761/2025
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrison Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Peacock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Peacock brought claims against Berkshire Music Trust for unauthorised deductions from pay and breach of contract relating to a failure to pay notice. The hearing took place on 13 November 2025 before Employment Judge Harrison at Reading by CVP, and the tribunal stated that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s pay in December 2024. It ordered Berkshire Music Trust to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,048.41 in respect of that claim.
The breach of contract claim concerning notice pay was also found well founded. The tribunal recorded, however, that the remedy sought had already been addressed in full through the award made on the unauthorised deductions claim, so no separate additional monetary award was made for breach of contract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from pay in December 2024 contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,048.41. | Upheld | — | £1,048 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the notice-pay breach of contract claim well founded, but recorded that the remedy sought had already been addressed in full under the unauthorised deductions claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,048
- across all upheld claims
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.