Case 1402587/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Katrina Cross v Miss Carna Emerson T/A Sublime Tanning and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402587/2020
- Decision date
- 14 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Katrina Cross
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent under rule 64, heard at Bristol by Cloud Video Platform on 18 December 2020 before Employment Judge Bax. The tribunal amended the first respondent’s name to Carna Emerson T/A Sublime Tanning Limited and added Miss Ayesha Fernandez T/A Sublime Tanning as second respondent.
By consent, the tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s complaint of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay was well founded. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £584.25.
The tribunal also recorded that the Respondents failed to give the Claimant itemised pay statements contrary to s. 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment does not record any separate monetary award for that finding.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded by consent that the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay was well founded and ordered the Respondents to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £584.25. | Upheld | — | £584 |
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the Respondents failed to give the Claimant itemised pay statements contrary to s. 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award is stated for this finding in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £584
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s. 8 ERA 1996
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.