Case 6018968/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. N Tesfaye v Aaron Michael Jack — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018968/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. N Tesfaye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 21 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the papers.
The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,500.00 gross, with the claimant responsible for tax and National Insurance. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £517.50 gross. The total sum payable was £3,017.00.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring that complaint by virtue of section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint well-founded; respondent ordered to pay the gross sum of £2,500 deducted, with the claimant responsible for any tax or NI. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £517.50 gross awarded (rounded to nearest integer GBP). | Upheld | — | £518 |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,017
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.