Case 2500560/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fox v JR NEWCO 1 Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500560/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing at Newcastle CFCTC on 7 August 2023, before Employment Judge Newburn, the claimant Mr J Fox succeeded on two monetary claims against JR Newco 1 Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £6,500 gross for unpaid wages. The judgment records that the award was gross and that the claimant would be liable for any tax and national insurance due on it.
The claimant also succeeded in a breach of contract claim brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, limited to holiday pay. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,038.46 gross for 9 days' pay in lieu of untaken holiday. The judgment states that the total sum due to the claimant was £7,538.46 and that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply to the awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded the gross sum of £6,500 for unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £6,500 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim succeeded in respect of holiday pay. The tribunal awarded £1,038.46 for 9 days' pay in lieu of untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £1,038 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,538
- 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.