Case 2500110/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr LEE Garcia v Birra 2 Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500110/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr LEE Garcia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Arullendran heard the case at Newcastle CFCTC on 3 September 2024. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal amended the respondent's name to Birra 2 Limited.
The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded, holding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in September 2023, and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £191.29, with the claimant responsible for any tax or national insurance.
The tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded, on the basis that the respondent failed to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended, and ordered the respondent to pay £237.60. The total award recorded by the tribunal was £428.89.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in September 2023; gross sum of £191.29 ordered to be paid. | Upheld | — | £191 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken at termination; characterised by the tribunal as an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £238 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £429
- 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.