Case 6014256/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Connell v G Leisure Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014256/2025
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Connell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 23 April 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The judgment also records that G Leisure Ltd was added as respondent in substitution for G Leisure under rule 35.
On the merits dealt with in the judgment, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages, that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. Each of those claims was upheld.
The tribunal ordered gross payments of £565.50 for the unlawful deductions claim, £400 for breach of contract, and £703.25 for holiday entitlement. The hearing listed for 10 July 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the gross amount of £565.50. | Upheld | — | £566 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded gross damages of £400. | Upheld | — | £400 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross amount of £703.25. | Upheld | — | £703 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,669
- 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.