Case 6005676/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Netherton v The Vocational Academy Essex Ltd [First Respondent] Michael Albert Rickards [Second Respondent] — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005676/2025
- Decision date
- 16 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Netherton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the correct name of the first respondent is The Vocational Academy Essex Ltd and directs the Tribunal’s records to be amended accordingly. The claim against the second respondent, Michael Albert Rickards, was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s claims of unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract succeeded. On the wages claim, the first respondent was ordered to pay £1,299.64 for unpaid wages for October 2024, £143.05 for unpaid wages for July 2024, and £450.00 for unpaid employer pension contributions, making a total of £1,822.69.
The tribunal also found for the claimant on the breach of contract claim in respect of failure to pay expenses. The first respondent was ordered to pay £81.43 for that claim. The judgment states that both sums are to be paid without deduction of Income Tax or employee’s National Insurance contributions where specified.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded in respect of unpaid wages for October 2024 (£1,299.64), unpaid wages for July 2024 (£143.05), and unpaid employer pension contributions (£450.00). | Upheld | — | £1,823 |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded for failure to pay expenses. | Upheld | — | £81 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,904
- 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.