Case 6014158/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Stewart v Gainford Hotel Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014158/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing proceeded in the Respondent’s absence under Rule 47. The Tribunal reviewed the file, including the Respondent’s Grounds of Resistance and witness statement, and noted that the Respondent had not uploaded the hearing file or attended to advance the case. The Respondent’s position was that it had a contractual right to deduct sums from the Claimant’s wages, said to arise from a Staff Handbook, but no copy of that handbook was before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant’s wages had been deducted in the sum of £1,110.00 for hotel accommodation. It held that the evidence did not demonstrate a relevant contractual provision within section 13(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 authorising the deduction, and therefore the deduction was not lawfully made. The claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £1,110.00. The judgment records that this is a gross award and that the Claimant is liable to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons refer to the deducted sum as '£1,1110', which appears to be a typographical error; the judgment order awards £1,110.00 gross in respect of hotel accommodation deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,110 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,110
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.