Case 6015994/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Boateng-Bailey v Pierpoint International (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015994/2025
- Decision date
- 3 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kara Loraine
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Boateng-Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract against Pierpoint International (UK) Limited. The respondent did not submit a Response in time and did not attend the hearing, so Employment Tribunal Rule 22 applied and judgment was issued on the basis of the claim.
The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded in respect of the period 6 January 2025 to 20 February 2025, awarding the gross sum deducted of £3,839.25, calculated on gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as earnings. The breach of contract complaint, covering £33.50 in unpaid mobile phone expenses and £135.27 in 3% pension contributions, was also well-founded, with damages of £168.77 awarded.
The total sum the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant was £4,008.02, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance due. The case was decided by Employment Judge Kara Loraine sitting alone at London Central by video on 30 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum deducted £3,839.25 for period 6 January 2025 to 20 February 2025; calculated on gross pay to reflect anticipated tax liability. Respondent did not submit a Response, so Rule 22 applied. | Upheld | — | £3,839 |
| Breach of contract | Damages of £168.77 comprising £33.50 net unpaid mobile phone expenses and £135.27 in 3% gross pay pension payments. | Upheld | — | £169 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,008
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 22
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.