Case 3308995/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr John Donnelly Respondent 1: Edmond Kirkham Respondent 2: Alfateq Limited v E Kirkham and Alfateq Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308995/2024
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr John Donnelly Respondent 1: Edmond Kirkham Respondent 2: Alfateq Limited
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 4 September 2024. The Respondents failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge dealt with the matter under rule 22 and converted the hearing to a final hearing under rule 48. The hearing took place at Watford by CVP on 10 July 2025, before Employment Judge Graham, with no attendance for the Respondents.
The tribunal found that the Second Respondent was the Claimant's employer, so the proceedings against the First Respondent failed and were dismissed. On the merits, the tribunal found that the Second Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,460 gross. It also found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £515.
The complaint of whistleblowing detriment was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal recorded a total sum due from the Second Respondent of £4,975.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the Second Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £4,460 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,460 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £515. | Upheld | — | £515 |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of whistleblowing detriment was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,975
- 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.