Case 6020280/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Harry Hicks v Stonehaven Search Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020280/2025
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Harry Hicks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent failed to file an ET3 within the deadline and did not request an extension. Employment Judge Keogh determined under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 that the claim could properly be decided on the papers without a hearing, based on the ET1 and attachment provided by the Claimant.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had unlawfully failed to pay in full the Claimant's bonus of £40,000 agreed in March 2024, leaving £4,000 net outstanding. The Tribunal also found that the Respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the Claimant's pension contributions of £2,500 net.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £6,500 net in total, and to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid portion of a £40,000 bonus agreed in March 2024; £4,000 net outstanding. | Upheld | — | £4,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid pension payments of £2,500 net. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.