Case 2502164/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Robins v Swale Auto Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2502164/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Robins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Newcastle heard the case on 10 March 2025 before Employment Judge Jeram. The claimant, Mr A Robins, appeared in person and was accompanied by his wife, Mrs Robins. The respondent, Swale Auto Services Ltd, was represented by Mr B Healey, solicitor.
The written judgment records that the claimant’s complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages and unpaid holiday pay were not well founded and were dismissed. No written reasons were provided in the record beyond the note that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
The claimant’s separate claim for notice pay was withdrawn and was dismissed on that basis. The judgment records no monetary award and no further remedy findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records this complaint as not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records this complaint as not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.