Case 6019816/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Danielle Mitchell v The Old Bakehouse Cuisine Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019816/2025
- Decision date
- 11 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Bridge Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Danielle Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Bridge, sitting alone, dismissed the claimant's claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay. The Judge preferred the respondent's evidence on the disputed factual issues, finding that the claimant began work on 21 October 2024 (consistent with the respondent's contemporaneous email to its accountants), worked 16 hours per week (not 38-45 as the claimant variously alleged), and was paid £11.44 per hour (the National Minimum Wage in 2024).
The Tribunal noted that even on the claimant's own version of events (£75 per day x 6 days a week), the gross figure was below what would have been due at NMW for those hours, but the net figure she stated she received (£450 per week) actually exceeded the net entitlement, demonstrating no deduction.
On holiday pay, the Judge found the claimant had taken three weeks' annual leave (48 hours) against an entitlement of 45 hours for the period of employment, and had been paid for the leave taken. Both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim of payment below National Minimum Wage not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 1 National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Bruce v Wiggins Teape (Stationery) Ltd
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.