Case 6022057/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J L Mullen v Henson Property Northumberland Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022057/2025
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J L Mullen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Henson Property Northumberland Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr J L Mullen's wages on 28 March 2025. It upheld the wages complaint and ordered the respondent to pay him the net sum deducted, £934.82.
The tribunal also upheld the holiday pay complaint. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay Mr Mullen for holidays accrued but not taken when his employment ended, and ordered payment of £408.34. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages on 28 March 2025 and ordered payment of the net sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £935 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay for holiday accrued but not taken when the employment ended and ordered payment of £408.34; the claimant was stated to be responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £408 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,343
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.