Case 2500132/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Pippet v JSR Hire Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500132/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Pippet
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Martin heard the case at Newcastle Employment Tribunal by Cloud Video Platform on 14 March 2023. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The first respondent did not attend and was not represented. The second respondent attended and was represented by Ms M Akbar, employment consultant.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages against both respondents because it was not well founded. It also dismissed the complaint of breach of the Working Time Regulations in respect of holiday pay against both respondents because that complaint was not well founded.
The written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that the parties could apply for written reasons within fourteen days of the judgment being sent. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was not well founded and was dismissed against both respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a complaint of breach of the Working Time Regulations (holiday pay), and states that it was not well founded and was dismissed against both respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.