Mr Drexal Dai Santi First v Aaron Michael Jack Second Respondent: Aaron Kearney — 2025

The claimant brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract in respect of notice pay against the first respondent, Aaron Michael Jack, and a second respondent, Aaron Kearney. The respondents did not attend the hearing, had not filed a response and had not engaged with the Tribunal, and the judge proceeded in their absence under the overriding objective. The claimant's employment with the first respondent ran from 10 March 2025 to 4 April 2025, ending when the first respondent sent a text message that the claimant treated as termination of the employment relationship.

On the wages claim, the tribunal accepted the claimant's unchallenged evidence that he had worked an average of 31 hours per week (about seven and three quarter hours per week in excess of the contractual six) during his final month and had not been paid, and awarded GBP620 gross. On the notice pay claim, the tribunal accepted that the contractual hours were six per week at GBP20 per hour, giving a one month notice entitlement of 24 hours, and awarded GBP480 as damages for breach of contract calculated on a gross basis.

The tribunal addressed the identity of the correct respondent. Companies House searches did not identify a company matching the entity named in the claimant's contract documents (Kearney CK Group Limited), and the tribunal accepted the claimant's unchallenged evidence on this point and was satisfied that the first respondent was the actual employer responsible for the awards. The tribunal decided the second respondent was not a correct respondent and made no orders against him. All other claims were dismissed, and the claimant confirmed he was not pursuing any unfair dismissal claim.