Case 6001290/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Higgins v Celos Wines Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001290/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Duncan Representation
- Venue
- Bristol via video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Higgins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge G Duncan heard the case at Bristol by video on 15 May 2025. The claimant, Miss S Higgins, appeared in person and the respondent, Celos Wines Limited, was represented by Mr Xenos, director. The judgment records that the claimant did not wish to pursue the holiday pay claim and that her pension payments issue had been resolved through the Pensions Ombudsman.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages. It ordered Celos Wines Limited to pay Miss Higgins the gross sum of £4,477.38 in respect of that claim.
The claimant’s holiday pay claim was dismissed. The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,477 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claimant did not wish to pursue the holiday pay claim, and then dismisses it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,477
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.