Case 6016383/2024 · Employment Tribunal
I Mason v Dizzyfizzy Hospitality Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016383/2024
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
I Mason
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 26 October 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Sweeney determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £460.10. The tribunal also found that the respondent had wrongfully dismissed the claimant and ordered damages of £94.60. The total amount ordered to be paid to the claimant was £554.70, and the hearing listed for 14 February 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross amount of £460.10. Determination made under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £460 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found the respondent wrongfully dismissed the claimant and ordered damages of £94.60. Determination made under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £95 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £555
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.