Case 6014378/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Miah v Fieldsend Financial Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6014378/2025
- Decision date
- 14 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Miah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Miah, brought an unpaid bonus claim against Fieldsend Financial Limited. The judgment records that this unpaid bonus claim was put as a breach of contract claim or, in the alternative, as an unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
Employment Judge Skehan struck out the unpaid bonus claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records no monetary award or remedy for that claim.
The judgment states that the remainder of the claimant's claims proceed. It does not identify those remaining claims or determine their merits in this written record. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons available only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's unpaid bonus claim was pleaded as breach of contract or, in the alternative, unauthorised deduction from wages. The breach of contract basis was struck out under Rule 38 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages basis was the alternative formulation of the unpaid bonus claim and was struck out under Rule 38 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.