Case 2500975/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Kinghorn v The Suntrap Bar Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500975/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss S Kinghorn
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a CVP hearing on 4 and 5 February 2025 before Employment Judge Arullendran, the tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims against the second respondent, Omar Dean Ames, as not well-founded. Three complaints against the first respondent, The Suntrap Bar Ltd, were upheld: unauthorised deduction of wages for the period 5 to 11 February 2024 (£400 gross), failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination (£200), and breach of contract in respect of notice pay (£400, calculated on gross pay to reflect likely tax treatment as Post Employment Notice Pay).
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint under Regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, her claim of automatic unfair dismissal, and her complaint of detriment under section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for alleging infringement of statutory rights, finding each to be not well-founded.
The total award is recorded as £1,000. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 5 February 2024 to 11 February 2024; gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £400 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday on termination, treated as an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £200 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded as damages for breach of contract; calculated using gross pay to reflect likely tax treatment as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £400 |
| Working time regulations | Complaint that the respondent breached Regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim of automatic unfair dismissal was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of detriment for alleging infringement of statutory rights under section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 45A of the 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.