Case 6003068/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Jackson v Mr D Clarke T/A The Polly Tearooms — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003068/2025
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray-Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedMiss J Jackson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge D Gray-Jones heard this claim against a sole trader trading as The Polly Tearooms. Three complaints were upheld but the basic pay deduction of £144.23 (1 September to 5 October 2024) and the statutory holiday pay claim of £281.36 had already been paid by the time of judgment, so no payment was ordered for those heads. The complaint of unauthorised deductions in respect of tips and gratuities was upheld in the gross sum of £150 less £50 already paid, ordering the respondent to pay the £100 balance. The respondent was also found in breach of its duty under s.1 ERA to issue a statement of employment particulars, attracting an award of two weeks' gross pay of £849.12 (2 x £424.56) under s.38 Employment Act 2002. Total ordered to be paid £949.12.
Claims and outcomes
8 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £100 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £849 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £100 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £849 |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £949
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.