Case 6005508/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr P Bond — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005508/2025
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Spencer, sitting at London Central by CVP on 1 September 2025, held that the proper respondent was PJ Bond Construction Limited. The tribunal also found that Mr Petkov was a worker within section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant's claim under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unlawful deduction of wages was found to be well founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,300, said to represent 10 days' pay at £230 per day.
The judgment records that the award was gross, and that any amount properly deducted and paid to the relevant authorities on account of the claimant's tax would be treated as a valid discharge of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant was a worker within section 230(3) ERA 1996 and that the Part 2 ERA 1996 claim for unlawful deduction of wages was well founded. | Upheld | — | £2,300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,300
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- Part 2 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.