Case 6038670/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Brown v Hre Btr Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6038670/2025
- Decision date
- 20 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 20 October 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross amount of £12,022.27. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross amount of £1,164.16.
The Tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction to award the £1,500 compensation claimed, nor to reimburse unpaid employer's pension contributions. The hearing listed on 17 September 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross amount of £12,022.27. Determined under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £12,022 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross amount of £1,164.16. | Upheld | — | £1,164 |
| Other | Tribunal recorded it had no jurisdiction to award the £1,500 compensation claimed, nor to reimburse unpaid employer's pension contributions. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,186
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.