Case 1307435/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sophia Calvin v Glamour Dolls Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1307435/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Close REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sophia Calvin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. It found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's pay for the period 27 March 2024 to 28 April 2024, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £645.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed in its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £547.77, being four weeks' gross pay, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded for the period 27 March 2024 to 28 April 2024. | Upheld | — | £645 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded four weeks' gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £548 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,193
- 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.