Mr J Marsland v The Festive Group Ltd and The Festive Decorators (UK) Ltd: 6020130/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6020130/2025

Between

Mr J MarslandClaimant

(1) The Festive Group Ltd (2) The Festive Decorators (UK) LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge McDonald

Not in attendance for claimant

Date 15 April 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]The claim against the First Respondent is dismissed. The claimant was employed by the Second Respondent not the First Respondent.

[2]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against the Second Respondent is well-founded. The Second Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period from 16 November 2024 to 15 December 2024.

[3]The Second Respondent shall pay the claimant £1702.25, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance.

REASONS

[4]This was the final hearing of the Claimant’s claim of unauthorised deduction from wages. The amount claimed of £1702.25 related to 132 hours worked by the Claimant between 16 November and 15 December 2024. I gave oral judgment and the First Respondent requested these reasons in writing.

[5]The claim was originally issued against the First Respondent. Its defence to the claim was that it was never the Claimant’s employer, being a holding company. It said the Second Respondent was the Claimant’s employer at all times.

[6]As a result, at a hearing on 10 November 2025, Employment Judge Eeley joined the Second Respondent as a party and directed that the Claimant’s claim be served on it at its registered office address. The Second Respondent had until 25 February 2026 to file a response. It has not done so.

[7]The Claimant did not attend this hearing. Late on the evening of 14 April 2026 he emailed to say that he was in hospital and would be unable to attend. On my direction he was asked to confirm whether he was applying to postpone the hearing or was content for it to go ahead in his absence. He emailed at 10.27 a.m. to confirm that the hearing could go ahead and that he had “nothing to give than I already have”.

[8]The First Respondent was represented by Ms White.

[9]The Second Respondent did not attend. Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 empowers a Tribunal to proceed in the absence of a party. Having checked the case file I was satisfied that the Second Respdonent had been served with notice of this hearing at its registered office address. In the absence of a Response Form there were no other contact details for the Second Respondent and no further enquiries it was practicable to make about the reasons for its absence. Given the final hearing in this case had already been postponed once and the Second Respondent had been given an opportunity to participate by being notified of the hearing I decided it was in accordance with the Overriding Objective to proceed in the Second Respondent’s absence.

[10]Mr Paul Lally, Head of Operations for the First Respondent, attended to give evidence. His unchallenged evidence was that the Claimant had never been employed by the First Respondent and was instead an employee of the Second Respondent. He accepted that the Claimant had done the work he was claiming wages for, but not that he was employed by the First Respondent when doing so.

[11]The First Respondent had prepared a bundle of documents for this hearing. The Claimant had been asked more than once to provide relevant documents which he said he had including WhatsApp messages with Mr Paul Lally. He had not done so despite the First Respondent’s representative chasing him up.

[12]Based on Mr Lally’s unchallenged evidence and there being nothing in the documentation in the Bundle to contradict that evidence I find that the Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent not the First Respondent. The claim against the First Respondent is dismissed.

[13]When it comes to the relevant law in relation to a claim of unauthorised deduction from wages, s.13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) says: "(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of a worker employed by him unless- the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision of a relevant provision of the worker’s contract, or the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction.”

[14]S.27(1) of ERA says: "(1) In this Part 'wages', in relation to a worker, means any sums payable to the worker in connection with his employment, including- (a) Any fee, bonus, commission, holiday pay or other emolument referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract or otherwise”

[15]S.13(3) of ERA says: "Where the total amount of wages paid on any occasion by an employer to a worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion (after deductions), the amount of the deficiency shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as a deduction made by the employer from the worker's wages on that occasion."

[16]In New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church

2000 IRLR 27

, CA the majority of the Court of Appeal held that a worker would have to show an actual legal, although not necessarily contractual, entitlement to the payment in question in order for it to fall within the definition of “wages”.

[17]The Second Respondent has not actively defended the claimant’s claim. An email from Carole Clare at p.55 of the hearing bundle confirms that the Claimant worked 132 hours between 16 November an d15 December 2024. The P60 and P45 at pages 48 and 56 of the bundle confirmed that Ms Clare was employed by the Second Respondent. Based on those and the evidence from Mr Lally I find the Claimant was entitled to be paid the wages he claimed of £1702.25 for that period. His claim against the Second Respondent succeeds and it is ordered to pay him that amount. Approved by: