Claimant v Bond Recruitment Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the first respondent did not make an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages. The claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the first respondent was not in breach of contract regarding wages owed to the claimant. The claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the second respondent did not make an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages. The claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the second respondent was not in breach of contract regarding wages owed to the claimant. The claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the third respondent did not make an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages. The claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the third respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay the claimant an increased hourly rate of £18.00 per hour from mid-August 2024. The claimant was entitled to the difference between what he was paid and what he should have been paid under the contract.
Facts
The claimant brought claims for unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract against three respondents: Bond Recruitment Limited (a recruitment agency), Paystream Solutions Limited (likely a payroll provider), and Management and Construction Services LTD (the end-user client). The claims related to an agreement that the claimant's hourly rate should have increased to £18.00 per hour from mid-August 2024. The claimant worked 470.5 hours over 8 weeks at £14.65 per hour when he should have been paid £18.00, and then worked 105.5 hours over 3 weeks at £15.00 per hour when he should have been paid £18.00.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction and breach of contract claims against the first and second respondents. However, it upheld the breach of contract claim against the third respondent (Management and Construction Services LTD), finding they had failed to pay the agreed increased rate of £18.00 per hour from mid-August 2024. The tribunal awarded the claimant £1,608.65 representing the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.
Practical note
In agency worker cases involving multiple parties, contractual liability for wage increases may rest with the end-user client rather than the recruitment agency or payroll provider, depending on the contractual arrangements.
Award breakdown
Case details
- Case number
- 6020369/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No