Case 6023390/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Lane v DND Group Limited (under Company Voluntary Arrangement) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023390/2024
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Lane
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Carlisle Combined Court on 8 April 2025, Employment Judge Humble found that DND Group Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr H Lane's wages by failing to pay wages due on 30 September 2024. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,472.90 in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations and had made unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of that holiday pay. It ordered payment of £350.18 for that item, bringing the total sum ordered in relation to the wage-deduction findings to £1,823.08.
Separately, the tribunal found that the response had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 74 of the Employment Procedure Rules 2024 and ordered the respondent to pay £615 for the claimant's preparation time. The written record of the decision was sent to the parties on 23 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,473 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal also described this as an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £350 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,823
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 74 Employment Procedure Rules 2024
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.