Case 6022431/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Forde v Pinnacle Finance and Property Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022431/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Forde
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Reid, sitting alone at East London Hearing Centre via CVP on 8 August 2025, found that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages. The respondent did not attend and no response had been received. The tribunal found unpaid net salary of £8,370.44 for August to November 2024 and unpaid net commission of £2,851.68 for August to October 2024, giving a total of £11,222.12 net payable within 14 days under Rule 64 of the Tribunal Rules 2024.
The tribunal declined to treat the claimant's increased student loan interest as an additional financial loss under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, holding that it was not a financial loss attributable to the non-payment of wages. The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to decide the claimant's breach of contract claim relating to unremitted pension contributions, because his employment had not terminated at the time the claim was presented.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 net salary for August-November 2024 (£2092.51 + £2092.71 + £2092.51 + £2092.71 = £8370.44 net). | Upheld | — | £8,370 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid net commission for August-October 2024 (£851.56 + £1121.16 + £878.96 = £2851.68 net). | Upheld | — | £2,852 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for additional financial loss under s.24(2) ERA 1996 in respect of increased student loan interest was not awarded; tribunal held it was not a financial loss attributable to the non-payment of wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim concerning employee pension contributions deducted but not passed on, and unpaid employer pension contributions, was not adjudicated on the merits: the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant's employment had not terminated at the time the claim was presented. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,222
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 64 Tribunal 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.