Case 6045376/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Colta v S & S Consulting Services (UK) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6045376/2025
- Decision date
- 17 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Colta
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that S&S Consulting Services was not Mr P Colta’s employer and that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his unauthorised deduction of wages claim against that company. The claim therefore failed. The tribunal identified Claylense Mills Limited as his employer. S&S Consulting Services did not attend the hearing, was not represented and had not filed a response.
Mr Colta worked as a brickwork manager. Although he had a contract with S&S Consulting Services, his work instructions came from Alan Mills and a manager acting for Claylense. He had to follow those instructions and could not send someone else to work in his place. He was not in business on his own account. S&S Consulting Services handled payroll, while Claylense supplied the money and payroll instructions. Tax and national insurance were deducted from his pay.
Mr Colta claimed £7,055.23 gross for unpaid wages across four periods between 19 May and 20 June 2025, when his employment ended. This was £931.17 less than originally claimed. No monetary award was made. Claylense entered some form of insolvency in July 2025. The tribunal advised Mr Colta to seek advice about possible recovery under Secretary of State rules, taking account of the time that had passed, but expressly made no prediction about the outcome of any application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim failed for lack of jurisdiction because S&S Consulting Services was not the claimant’s employer. The £7,055.23 figure was the amount claimed, not an award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Balance of probabilities
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.