Case 6015702/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Steven Samuda v Young London Today — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015702/2026
- Decision date
- 3 September 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Steven Samuda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSteven Samuda presented his claim against Young London Today in the London South Employment Tribunal on 1 May 2026. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Samuda’s wages for October, November and December 2025 and ordered payment of £7,749.99 gross. It also found that the respondent had breached his employment contract in respect of pension contributions and awarded £3,177.68 in damages.
The tribunal found that Samuda had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,048.16. The total award was £18,975.83. The judgment required Samuda to account to HMRC for tax and National Insurance, as appropriate, where these were not deducted at source. The hearing listed for 23 September 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £8,048 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross award for unauthorised deductions from wages for October, November and December 2025. | Upheld | — | £7,750 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for breach of the employment contract in respect of pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £3,178 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,976
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the 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.