Case 8002274/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lewis v Pulse Marketplace UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002274/2025
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Cowen
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn an oral judgment, Employment Judge S Cowen found that Mr D Lewis's claim for unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal awarded £13,797.35 on that claim, including a statutory uplift of 25% for failure to abide by the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unlawful deduction from wages. It awarded £72,111.16 for unpaid wages covering the period from September 2023 to June 2025. A separate claim for outstanding holiday pay accrued but untaken at the time of termination also succeeded, with an award of £3,176.88.
The total amount payable by Pulse Marketplace UK Limited was £89,085.39.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded £13,797.35, including a statutory uplift of 25% for failure to abide by the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. | Upheld | — | £13,797 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages and awarded £72,111.16 for unpaid wages from September 2023 to June 2025. | Upheld | — | £72,111 |
| Holiday pay | The claim for outstanding holiday pay accrued but untaken at termination succeeded, with an award of £3,176.88. | Upheld | — | £3,177 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £89,085
- 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.