Case 1300722/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Harper (1) Mrs A Edwards(2) Ms S Deaville(3) v Stoke on Trent City Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1300722/2022
- Decision date
- 28 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Harper (1) Mrs A Edwards(2) Ms S Deaville(3)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Birmingham Employment Tribunal heard the case via CVP on 26, 27 and 28 April 2023 before Employment Judge Noons, and gave its liability judgment on 28 April 2023. In that judgment, it declared that Stoke on Trent City Council had breached the contracts of Mrs H Harper, Mrs A Edwards and Ms S Deaville, and that it had failed to provide an updated statement of terms and conditions recording changes for all three claimants.
The tribunal also declared that Ms S Deaville had not been paid all wages properly due to her and had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages. The extract provided is a liability judgment only and does not record any remedy, monetary award or legal test by name.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Declaration that the respondent breached the contracts of Mrs H Harper, Mrs A Edwards and Ms S Deaville. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Declaration that the respondent failed to provide an updated statement of terms and conditions recording changes for Mrs H Harper, Mrs A Edwards and Ms S Deaville. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Declaration that Ms S Deaville was not paid all wages properly due to her and suffered an unlawful deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | — |
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.