Case 2500074/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R MacArthur v The Crown Pub Hawes Ltd (in Voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500074/2024
- Decision date
- 22 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R MacArthur
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal corrected the respondent's name to The Crown Pub Hawes Ltd (in voluntary liquidation). The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the CVP hearing.
The claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was well founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay GBP 1,499.94. The complaint of breach of the Working Time Regulations in respect of holiday pay was also well founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay GBP 1,915.30.
The claimant's complaint of failure to provide itemised pay slips was not well founded and was dismissed. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, with written reasons available on application within fourteen days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states this complaint was well founded and awards this sum. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as breach of the working time regulations (holiday pay), states it was well founded, and awards this sum. | Upheld | — | £1,915 |
| Other | The judgment states the complaint of failure to provide itemised pay slips was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,415
- 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.