Case 6019864/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Jamieson v DND Group Limited (under Company Voluntary Arrangement) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019864/2024
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Jamieson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Newcastle Employment Tribunals on 26 November 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Sweeney determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 without a contested hearing.
The tribunal found that DnD Group Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr S Jamieson's wages and had failed to pay his holiday entitlement. Those claims were therefore upheld. The hearing listed for 28 January 2025 was cancelled.
The judgment ordered the respondent to pay Mr S Jamieson the gross amount of £1,588.10. The judgment does not split that figure between the wage-deduction and holiday-pay findings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The judgment was issued under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the award was not split between this claim and the holiday pay claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The judgment was issued under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the award was not apportioned between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,588
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.