Case 2501662/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hayley Pattison v Secret Garden Cafe (Hull) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501662/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Robertson Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hayley Pattison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Secret Garden Café (Hull) Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Hayley Pattison's wages for the period worked between 27 April and 12 June 2024 inclusive. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,601.04, described in the judgment as the gross sum deducted, and noted that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due.
The tribunal also found that, when the proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It recorded that there were no exceptional circumstances making an award of two weeks' gross pay unjust or inequitable, and that it was not just and equitable to make an award of four weeks' gross pay. It therefore awarded £634.56 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
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 in respect of the period worked between 27 April and 12 June 2024 inclusive and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £2,601 |
| Other | The tribunal found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars and awarded two weeks' gross pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £635 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,236
- 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.