Case 6033758/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Millar v Leazes Arcade Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6033758/2025
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Millar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Newcastle before Employment Judge Davidson on 6 March 2025, considered Mr R Millar's complaints against Leazes Arcade Limited concerning notice pay and holiday pay. Both complaints were found to be well-founded.
On notice pay, the tribunal held that the breach of contract complaint succeeded and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £769.23 as damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the sum would be taxed as Post Employment Notice Pay. On holiday pay, the tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken at the date employment ended, and ordered payment of £769.23, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
The judgment is a short-form decision; written reasons were not provided and would only be issued on request within 14 days. No findings were made on any other matters listed by gov.uk (redundancy pay or working time) in the text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in relation to notice pay; figure calculated using gross pay to reflect likely tax treatment as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £769 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay treated as an unauthorised deduction from wages for holidays accrued but not taken at the end of employment. Claimant responsible for any tax/NI. | Upheld | — | £769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,538
- 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.