Case 2500365/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hudson First v Jeet Nest Fish and Chips Limited Second Respondent: JJ Wine Bar Limited Third Respondent: Blue Lounge previously Kings Bar — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500365/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Hudson First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt North Shields on 23 July 2019, Employment Judge Aspden found that the first respondent had failed to pay the claimant the National Living Wage, so that there had been unlawful deductions from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also found that holiday pay remained due under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The judgment records that, when the proceedings began, the first respondent was in breach of its duty to the claimant under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis the tribunal made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed.
The first respondent was ordered to pay £4,539.76 in respect of the unlawful deduction claim, £773.70 in respect of holiday pay, and £1,409.40 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, giving a total award of £6,722.86.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to pay the National Living Wage, amounting to a deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The award was made only against the first respondent; the claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £4,540 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found that holiday pay remained due under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The award was made only against the first respondent; the claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £774 |
| Other | The tribunal found that when the proceedings began the first respondent was in breach of its duty under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £1,409 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,723
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.