Case 6022467/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Josh Thomas v Oven Support England Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022467/2025
- Decision date
- 24 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Josh Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Bansal decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. The Tribunal found that Oven Support England LTD made an unauthorised deduction from Josh Thomas's wages during February to March 2025 and ordered the respondent to pay £2,659.20 gross, less deductions for tax and National Insurance.
The complaint for £1,294.13 in respect of a loan repayment was dismissed. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to make an award relating to a domestic agreement.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award is stated as a gross sum, less deductions for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £2,659 |
| Breach of contract | The complaint concerned £1,294.13 in respect of a loan repayment. It was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an award relating to a domestic agreement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,659
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.