Case 1304376/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Farley (previously Davies) v Mr S Pardon and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304376/2023
- Decision date
- 15 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss T Farley (previously Davies)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Power, sitting alone, held that Miss T Farley’s complaint of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of the national minimum wage was well founded. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay her the gross sum of £1,207.50, calculated as deductions of £1.50 per hour over 805 hours.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent had breached its duty to give the Claimant a written statement of employment particulars under s1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For that breach, the tribunal ordered payment of £247, described as two weeks’ pay, under s38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Pardos Café Limited was added as Second Respondent. The judgment records that the hearing was held on 15 February 2024 by Cloud Video Platform and that the tribunal sat without lay members.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of the national minimum wage succeeded; the tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,207.50, calculated as deductions of £1.50 per hour over 805 hours. | Upheld | — | £1,208 |
| Other | The tribunal found the Respondent was in breach of its duty to give a written statement of employment particulars under s1(1) ERA 1996 and ordered payment of £247, being two weeks' pay, under s38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £247 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,455
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s38 Employment Act 2002
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.