Case 2501102/2025 · Employment Tribunal
H Heena v HP Hospitality (Piercebridge) Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2501102/2025
- Decision date
- 6 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
H Heena
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe joint judgment covered case numbers 2501102/2025 and 2500873/2026. The tribunal dismissed the proceedings under 2501102/2025 on withdrawal because they were a duplicate claim.
In the joint judgment, the tribunal found H Heena’s claim of unauthorised deduction of wages against HP Hospitality (Piercebridge) Ltd well-founded under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,288.47 gross.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for failure to pay holiday pay on termination of employment under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It awarded £290 gross for that claim and ordered a total payment of £2,578.47. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing on 6 July 2026.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross award recorded in the joint judgment covering 2501102/2025 and 2500873/2026. Proceedings under 2501102/2025 were separately dismissed on withdrawal as a duplicate. | Upheld | — | £2,288 |
| Holiday pay | Gross award for unpaid holiday pay on termination, recorded in the joint judgment. Proceedings under 2501102/2025 were separately dismissed on withdrawal as a duplicate. | Upheld | — | £290 |
| Other | Records the procedural disposition of the duplicate proceedings under 2501102/2025, which were dismissed on withdrawal, rather than an additional substantive cause of action. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,578
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.