Case 2401410/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Hartland v Blue Lion NLW Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401410/2022
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Hartland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O Hartland did not attend the hearing, but Employment Judge Horne did not dismiss the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal then determined the wage claims on the evidence before it.
The tribunal found that Blue Lion NLW Ltd made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's final week's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £60.00. It also found that there was no deduction from the claimant's penultimate week's wages, because the 6.5 hours' wages claimed were not properly payable.
The holiday pay claim was dismissed. The written notice also stated the standard interest position: if the £60 award is unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, interest would run from 15 October 2022 at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's final week's wages and ordered payment of £60.00. It also found that there was no deduction from the claimant's penultimate week's wages, and that the 6.5 hours' wages claimed were not properly payable. | Upheld | — | £60 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £60
- 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.