Case 6044440/2025 · Employment Tribunal
George Hawkins v Duxarth Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6044440/2025
- Decision date
- 14 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
George Hawkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningGeorge Hawkins presented the claim against Duxarth Limited on 2 December 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that Duxarth Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Hawkins's wages and ordered payment of £1,437.50 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay his holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £485.24. The tribunal further found a failure to comply with section 27D(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning how tips must be dealt with and ordered payment of £175. The total amount payable was £2,097.74.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,438 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £485 |
| Other | Failure to comply with Employment Rights Act 1996 section 27D(1) concerning how tips must be dealt with. | Upheld | — | £175 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,098
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 27D(1)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.