Case 2501962/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. J. Lawson v Durham Distillers Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501962/2024
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- Newcastle Civil and Family Courts and Tribunal Centre via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. J. Lawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge T.R. Smith, sitting alone at Newcastle Civil and Family Courts and Tribunal Centre via CVP on 28 January 2025, found the claimant's complaint of non-payment of wages well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £183.04 gross, calculated as 16 hours at £11.44 per hour. The tribunal also found the complaint of non-payment of holiday pay well-founded and ordered payment of £674.04 gross, calculated as 58.92 hours at £11.44 per hour.
The total sum ordered under the two upheld complaints is £857.08 gross, payable within 14 days of the judgment, with the claimant responsible for any tax and national insurance on those sums. Any further claims were dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard notice. The judgment does not set out detailed factual findings or legal analysis in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Non-payment of wages: 16 hours x £11.44 per hour, gross. | Upheld | — | £183 |
| Holiday pay | Non-payment of holiday pay: 58.92 hours x £11.44 per hour, gross. | Upheld | — | £674 |
| Other | Judgment states 'Any further claims are dismissed' without specifying their nature; gov.uk listing suggested breach of contract and working time were also pleaded but the judgment does not adjudicate them individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £857
- 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.