Case 6011096/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Saunders v Mr Mark Akred and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011096/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr James Saunders
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claim against the first respondent on the basis that he was not the claimant's employer.
Judgment was entered against the second respondent under Rule 22 because it had failed to submit a response to the claim. The second respondent was ordered to pay the claimant compensation for unlawful deduction from wages / breach of contract in the sum of £4,613.95.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment was entered against the second respondent under Rule 22. The judgment states a combined award for unlawful deduction from wages / breach of contract and does not split the remedy by claim. The claim against the first respondent was dismissed because he was not the claimant's employer. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Judgment was entered against the second respondent under Rule 22. The judgment states a combined award for unlawful deduction from wages / breach of contract and does not split the remedy by claim. The claim against the first respondent was dismissed because he was not the claimant's employer. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,614
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.