Case 6017810/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Dev v Fidelity Consultancy Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017810/2024
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Dev
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr H Dev did not attend the hearing. Fidelity Consultancy Limited gave evidence that it had offered him a web developer role in October 2023, agreed to sponsor his UK visa, and placed him on payroll from 1 November 2023 for sponsorship reasons. The respondent said he never attended for work, did not sign the employment contract required by the visa sponsorship arrangements, and that sponsorship was withdrawn after about four months because no work had been done.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. It recorded that the claimant had not produced a schedule of loss, had not produced evidence showing that he was employed by the respondent or that he provided services, and had not addressed the respondent's position despite being on notice of it. The tribunal also noted that the agreed salary was £23,000, that the claimant had stated £35,000 in his ET1, and that if 3 May 2024 was the last day of employment on his own case the claim appeared to have been presented out of time. It found he had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim before the time limit expired.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found no unlawful deduction from wages. It noted the claimant had not provided a schedule of loss, had not shown that he was employed by the respondent or that he provided services, and had not answered the respondent's case with evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.