Case 6002255/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rowell v AJ Civil and Engineering Limited HELD AT: Newcastle/ CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002255/2025
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Booth REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rowell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had not been employed by the respondent for the minimum two-year period required by sections 108 and 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear that complaint.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was a worker of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint was well-founded, finding that the respondent had deducted wages for five 10-hour shifts payable at 16 pounds per hour, and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of 800 pounds.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the claimant was not employed by the respondent for the minimum two-year period required by sections 108 and 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. The judgment text refers to five 10-hour shifts in the week commencing 04.10.2025, although the deduction date is stated as 17.01.2025. | Upheld | — | £800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £800
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 108 and 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.