Case 2500947/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Carr v Eshwinning Work Men’s Club Limited HELD AT: Newcastle (by video) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500947/2024
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Carr
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 22 July 2024, Employment Judge Aspden sitting in Newcastle by video determined that Miss A Carr was entitled under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 to a redundancy payment of £3,657.42. The tribunal ordered Eshwinning Work Men’s Club Limited to pay that sum to the claimant as a redundancy payment.
The tribunal also found that the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages, arising from the respondent's failure to pay accrued untaken holiday on termination of employment, was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £343.86, being the amount due. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment in this amount. | Upheld | — | £3,657 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint related to failure to pay accrued untaken holiday on termination of employment; tribunal found it well founded. | Upheld | — | £344 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,001
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.