Case 6030428/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ryan Forde v Pinnacle Finance and Property Group Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6030428/2025
- Decision date
- 27 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ryan Forde
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ryan Forde's claim against Pinnacle Finance & Property Group Limited was heard on 30 March 2026 at East London Hearing Centre. The respondent did not attend. Although the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, the tribunal found that timely presentation had not been reasonably practicable and that the claim was presented within a further reasonable period. It therefore allowed the claim to proceed.
The tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period December 2024 to 10 March 2025. The deductions comprised £6,976.09 in unpaid wages, £3,902.22 deducted as student loan payments but not paid, and £1,800.75 deducted as pension contributions but not paid.
The respondent was ordered to pay £12,679.06, representing the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance. The judgment provides that any amount remaining unpaid 14 days from the date of judgment will incur interest at 8% per annum; no interest amount was quantified.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £12,679 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,679
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Not reasonably practicable to present within the applicable time limit
- Presentation within a further reasonable period
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.