Case 6020369/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the first v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020369/2024
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the first
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Joseph Smith Butcher, appeared in person at Southampton before Employment Judge Rayner. The first respondent was Bond Recruitment Limited, the second was Paystream Solutions Limited, and the third was Management and Construction Services Ltd.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims against the first and second respondents for unlawful deduction from wages, together with the alternative breach of contract basis pleaded in those claims. It also dismissed the claim that the third respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages.
The claimant succeeded only on his breach of contract claim against the third respondent. The tribunal found that the third respondent failed to pay the increased hourly rate of £18.00 per hour from mid-August 2024, and ordered payment of £1,608.65 gross, made up of £1,290.15 for the difference between £14.65 and £18.00 over eight weeks and 470.5 hours, plus £316.65 for the difference between £15.00 and £18.00 over three weeks and 105.5 hours.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the first respondent; the alternative breach of contract basis was also dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the second respondent; the alternative breach of contract basis was also dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the third respondent was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The third respondent failed to pay the claimant the increased hourly rate of £18.00 from mid-August 2024. The award was calculated as £1,290.15 for eight weeks at £14.65 versus £18.00, plus £316.65 for three weeks at £15.00 versus £18.00. | Upheld | — | £1,609 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,609
- 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.