Case 1600164/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs M.D. Hughes v Mr Gareth Roberts trading as Raw Juice — 2019

Case reference: 1600164/2019
Decision date: 17 May 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs M.D. Hughes

Respondent

Mr Gareth Roberts trading as Raw Juice

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs M.D. Hughes brought claims against Mr Gareth Roberts trading as Raw Juice for unauthorised deductions from wages, holiday pay said to be due on termination, and breach of contract concerning notice of termination. Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan heard the matter at Mold on 17 May 2019. The claimant was absent and her attendance was not excused; the respondent appeared in person.

The tribunal held that the claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, unpaid holiday pay on termination, and breach of contract were not well-founded and dismissed them. It also dismissed the claim about failure to automatically enrol the claimant in an occupational pension scheme, but did so on jurisdictional grounds rather than after determining the merits.

On the pension issue, the tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction, noting that alleged non-compliance with the applicable legislation was a matter for the Pensions Regulatory Authority. No monetary award was made. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was made within the time stated in the record.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal held the claim was not well-founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The tribunal held the claim was not well-founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The claim concerned notice of termination; the tribunal held it was not well-founded and dismissed it.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The claim that the respondent failed to automatically enrol the claimant in an occupational pension scheme was dismissed because the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.