Case 2207128/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Dallas Macklin v West End Galleries Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2207128/2025
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dallas Macklin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDallas Macklin brought a claim against West End Galleries Ltd. The respondent failed to file an ET3 within the deadline and did not request an extension of time. Employment Judge Brown decided that a determination of the claim could properly be made without a hearing, and made a Rule 22 judgment under the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's wages for work performed between July and August 2025, with the claimant paid at £12.21 per hour and having worked 87.1 hours, giving a total of £1,063.49. The respondent had also failed to pay one day of accrued but untaken holiday pay of £66.51. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,130 and to account to HMRC for any tax and NI due on this sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages claim upheld for unpaid wages between July and August 2025. The claimant was paid £12.21 per hour and worked 87.1 hours, totalling £1,063.49. | Upheld | — | £1,063 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim upheld. One day of holiday pay accrued but not taken in the sum of £66.51. | Upheld | — | £67 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,130
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
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.