Case 2424671/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Victoria Neale v Stephen Neale — 2019
- Case reference
- 2424671/2017
- Decision date
- 12 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey Members
- Venue
- Carlisle Magistrates Court
- Panel members
- Ms Cadbury, Mr Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Victoria Neale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningVictoria Neale and Stephen Neale appeared in person at Carlisle Magistrates Court on 23 and 24 July 2019 before Employment Judge Hoey with lay members Ms Cadbury and Mr Wilson. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unlawful race discrimination claim. It also recorded that the unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal of that claim.
The claimant succeeded on the contractual money claims. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay notice pay and ordered damages of £230.40. The holiday pay claim also succeeded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £156.67, less any deductions required by law.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that this claim was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal of the claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent failed to pay notice pay; damages were ordered in the sum of £230.40. | Upheld | — | £230 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was ordered in the sum of £156.67, less any deductions required by law. | Upheld | — | £157 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £387
- 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.