Case 6027054/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Thomas Allen v Oolong Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6027054/2025
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker Appearances
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Thomas Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal granted the respondent's application dated 13 October 2025 to amend the ET3.
The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages between 1 February 2025 and 30 April 2025, and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted, subject to tax and National Insurance handling as stated in the judgment.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 for September, October and November 2024, and for March and April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded for the period 1 February 2025 to 30 April 2025. | Upheld | — | £29,167 |
| Other | The judgment states the respondent failed to give written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary remedy is stated for this finding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,167
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 8 Employment Rights Act 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.