Case 6017636/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Misambo v FC2010 Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017636/2025
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Misambo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to enter a response to the claim and did not attend the hearing, although it had been given notice. The case was heard at Leeds by CVP on 19 November 2025 before Employment Judge Tegerdine, with the claimant appearing in person.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £3,360, described as the amount properly payable in respect of wages that should have been paid on 8 May 2024, 15 May 2024, 22 May 2024, 29 January 2025, 5 February 2025, 12 February 2025 and 19 February 2025.
The judgment ordered payment on or before 3 December 2025. No separate apportionment of the award was given between the breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages heads of claim, and no other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract was well founded, but it does not split the £3,360 award between the two heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract was well founded, but it does not split the £3,360 award between the two heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,360
- across all upheld claims
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.