Case 6027929/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Samantha Jane Lancaster v Phase 2 Growth Ltd (No defence filed) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6027929/2025
- Decision date
- 18 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Samantha Jane Lancaster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found Mrs Samantha Jane Lancaster’s unlawful deductions from wages claim well founded and ordered Phase 2 Growth LTD to pay £3,094. The award comprised £2,320 for unpaid wages for June and July 2025, £46 for unpaid employer pension contributions on those wages, and £728 for eight days of accrued and unpaid holiday pay on termination.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because Mrs Lancaster lacked the required service and none of the exemptions to that requirement appeared to apply in the circumstances she described. Her remaining disability discrimination claim could not be determined on the information available at the hearing and continued to be pursued; no outcome or remedy was determined for that claim in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award comprised £2,320 in unpaid wages for June and July 2025, £46 in unpaid employer pension contributions on those wages, and £728 for eight days of accrued but unpaid holiday pay on termination. | Upheld | — | £3,094 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant lacked the required service, and none of the exemptions to the service requirement appeared to apply. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim could not be determined on the information available at this hearing and continued to be pursued. | Other | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,094
- 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.