Case 6022590/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J Brown v Halo Hair Group Darlington Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022590/2025
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, J Brown, presented the claim in the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 17 June 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The tribunal also substituted Halo Hair Group Darlington Ltd as the correctly named respondent under rule 35, noting that the claim form had been served at the respondent's registered office.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered Halo Hair Group Darlington Ltd to pay the claimant the gross amount of £5,794.87. The listed hearing on 20 August 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross amount of £5,794.87. | Upheld | — | £5,795 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,795
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22
- rule 35
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.