Case 6018167/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jamie Greengrass v ONQOR Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018167/2025
- Decision date
- 20 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sarkis Claimant
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jamie Greengrass
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a junior UI designer employed by ONQOR Ltd from 15 August 2022, was made redundant by letter of 22 November 2024. He was not paid his October 2024 salary and only received partial payments thereafter (£570 in December 2024 and £655 in January 2025). The respondent did not file an ET3 response and did not attend the CVP hearing on 20 October 2025.
Employment Judge Sarkis found that, although the claim form was lodged outside the three-month limit, it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time given his expectation of payment supported by assurances received via an active WhatsApp group and his unrepresented status, and that it was presented within a further reasonable period. On the merits, the tribunal upheld the claims for unlawful deduction from wages (including accrued holiday), the unpaid agreed redundancy payment, unpaid notice pay in breach of contract, and unpaid employee pension contributions in breach of contract. The claims for additional financial loss and for emotional distress were dismissed, the former for lack of evidence of financial loss and the latter because the proceedings did not include a claim for unlawful treatment such as discrimination or harassment.
After accounting for £1,225 already received by the claimant in December 2024 and January 2025, the respondent was ordered to pay £9,868.19 in total, with the claimant responsible for tax on the gross sums as appropriate.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages October-December 2024 including accrued but untaken holiday pay; gross sum of £6,044.51 comprising October wages £2,500, November wages £2,345.44 (after deducting £737.89 notice pay element), and holiday pay £1,199.07. Tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within 3 months and it was presented within a further reasonable period. | Upheld | — | £6,044 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for additional financial loss under s.24(2) ERA arising from non-payment of wages; dismissed as the claimant did not provide evidence of financial loss causally linked to the non-payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Unpaid agreed redundancy payment of £1,400 confirmed by the respondent's letter of 22 November 2024 and included in the December 2024 payslip but not paid. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for unpaid pay in lieu of notice; net sum of £1,160 awarded. Tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within 3 months and it was brought within a reasonable period. | Upheld | — | £1,160 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for unpaid employee pension contributions deducted from salary but never paid to a pension provider; net sum of £2,488.68 awarded for the period 15 August 2022 to 30 September 2024. (Judgment text contains a typographical figure of £2,448.68 in the reasons but the operative judgment and bottom-line figure use £2,488.68.) |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,868
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 23(2)(a) ERA
- section 23(3) ERA
- section 13(1) ERA
- section 13(3) ERA
- section 14 ERA
- section 24(2) ERA
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.