Case 6005330/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Riley Dunford v Mr Shane Mansell Spencer t/a Market Tap, Castleford — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005330/2024
- Decision date
- 17 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Riley Dunford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Riley Dunford gave oral evidence and written evidence that he had been appointed as a barista at Market Tap in Castleford, run by Mr Shane Mansell Spencer, and that there was no corporate respondent. No ET3 was filed and there was no appearance for the respondent. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s unchallenged evidence as persuasive and cogent, and found that he had worked under the agreed terms and had been paid only £535 in cash during the relevant period.
The tribunal held that there was no evidence of any agreement varying the original terms or of any right reserved to withhold wages. It treated the complaint as an unlawful deduction from wages claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the claimant had suffered an unlawful withholding of 240 hours’ pay at an agreed gross hourly rate of £11.44. Judgment was entered for unpaid wages in the sum of £2,210.60 after credit for the cash already paid.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted text refers to the unpaid period as ending on both 6 May 2024 and 15 May 2024. The award was calculated as 240 hours at £11.44 per hour, less £535 paid in cash. | Upheld | — | £2,211 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,211
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 13 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.