Case 1400176/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Hadlow v Arcobaleno Cafe Bar C/O Iain Heatlie and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400176/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J Hadlow
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J Hadlow brought a claim in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 1 February 2024 against Arcobaleno Cafe Bar c/o Iain Heatlie and Springfield Catering Management Ltd. The claim against the First Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The Second Respondent failed to present a valid response in time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and the tribunal dealt with the claim on that basis.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the Second Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered the Second Respondent to pay Ms Hadlow £120.23.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the First Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Second Respondent did not present a valid response in time; the tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21 and found unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £120 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £120
- across all upheld claims
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.