Case 1403701/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Kristy Dunn v Bestway Retail Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403701/2020
- Decision date
- 24 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Kristy Dunn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Kristy Dunn brought complaints against Bestway Retail Limited concerning her salary payment for May 2020 and the absence of an itemised pay statement. Employment Judge Fowell heard the case at Bristol by video on 14 May 2021. The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaint in relation to the May 2020 salary payment.
The tribunal found that the underpayment had already been rectified, together with all other payments due to the claimant. For that reason, although the complaint succeeded, the tribunal made no award of compensation.
The separate complaint that the respondent failed to provide an itemised pay statement was dismissed. The tribunal’s reason was that, because there had been no payment of wages made in May 2020, there was no obligation under section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide a pay statement at that time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the complaint in respect of the claimant’s salary payment for May 2020, but recorded that the underpayment had been rectified and that no compensation award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The complaint of failure to provide an itemised pay statement was dismissed because, on the tribunal’s finding, there was no payment of wages made in May 2020 and therefore no obligation under section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide a pay statement at that time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 8 Employment Rights Act 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.