Case 6018846/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Thomas Waddell v Lead Pro Solutions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018846/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Sarkis REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Thomas Waddell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Christopher Thomas Waddell, was employed by Lead Pro Solutions Ltd as a Senior Sales and Operations Manager from 5 August 2024 on an annual salary of £45,000. He resigned on 7 September 2024 and worked his two-week notice period, finishing on 20 September 2024. The tribunal noted that an unfair dismissal claim had already been struck out by order of 2 January 2025 because the claimant had not acquired 2 years' service.
The hearing on 3 March 2025 proceeded only on the unlawful deduction from wages claim after the respondent sought a postponement the previous evening. The tribunal refused that request, noting that a materially similar postponement request had already been refused, that the respondent had filed no documents or substantive defence, and that the claimant said further delay was affecting his mental health. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
On the evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid any wages at all. It relied on the payslip showing payment due on 2 September 2024 for £3,310.10 salary and a £2,500 bonus, the claimant's emails asking to be paid, and the respondent's email apologising for the delayed payments. The tribunal also accepted the claimant's evidence that he had never received wages and noted that the respondent filed no evidence to show payment had been made.
Applying section 27 ERA to the definition of wages, and section 13 ERA to the question of whether there had been a deduction, the tribunal held that the full gross amount properly payable had been deducted because no payment was made. It found the deduction was not authorised under section 13(1) and did not fall within any exempt deduction under section 14. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was therefore well-founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £7,386.30 gross, comprising August salary, the bonus shown on the payslip, and pay for the days worked in September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out by order dated 2 January 2025 because the claimant had not acquired 2 years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 5 August 2024 to 20 September 2024 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £7,386 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,386
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 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.