Case 2501199/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Miss L. Robinson v White Pill Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 2501199/2022
Decision date: 14 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge G. King Representation
Venue: Newcastle ET via CVP

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss L. Robinson

Respondent

White Pill Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Under s.11 Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal determined what particulars should have been included in the Claimant's contract of employment to comply with s.1 ERA 1996. It found that the contract was not a zero-hours contract within s.27A(1) ERA 1996, that it did not specify any minimum weekly hours of work, and that the contract was for the Claimant to be paid the National Minimum Wage.

The Claimant's unlawful deductions from wages claim was found not well founded and was dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Pursuant to s.11 Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal determined the particulars that ought to have been included under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996. It found the contract was not a zero-hours contract within s.27A(1) ERA 1996, did not specify any minimum weekly hours of work, and was for the Claimant to be paid the National Minimum Wage.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The Claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages was found not well founded and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.