Case 6012161/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Adamson v Ms Y Adamson Heard By: Newcastle Employment Tribunal By: Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012161/2025
- Decision date
- 10 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Adamson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of breach of contract for notice pay, unlawful deduction from wages, and failure to provide pay slips. The claimant and respondent both appeared in person before Employment Judge Martin by Cloud Video Platform on 10 February 2026.
The Tribunal dismissed all the complaints because they were presented out of time and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the written judgment states that the parties could apply for written reasons within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment describes this as breach of contract (notice pay) and dismisses it as presented out of time, with the Tribunal lacking jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment dismisses this complaint as presented out of time, with the Tribunal lacking jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The written judgment describes this as failure to provide pay slips and dismisses it as presented out of time, with the Tribunal lacking jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.