Case 3303753/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Hadley v Air Canada — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303753/2024
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms A Crosby, Ms B Osborne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Hadley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously decided that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant GBP 6,124.60 in respect of deductions from wages for August 2023 to April 2024, and GBP 734.96 to the claimant's pension scheme for employer pension contributions for the same period.
The tribunal also decided that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments failed and was dismissed. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so no further findings are available in the text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of unauthorised deductions contrary to sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded. The wages sum was stated as a gross sum; a separate pension contribution payment was also ordered by consent. | Upheld | — | £6,125 |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment identifies this as a complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments and states that it failed and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,860
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 13 and 23 of the 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.