Case 1405531/2023 · Employment Tribunal
- MR N HEWITT-COOPER (C1 AND C2) NO ATTENDANCE (C3 / C4) FOR THE v Sol Attendance Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405531/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- MR N HEWITT-COOPER (C1 AND C2) NO ATTENDANCE (C3 / C4) FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld C1's and C2's claims that they had not been provided with written particulars of the primary terms of employment under s1 Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded each of them four weeks' pay under s38 Employment Act 2002, using the average pay figures provided by the claimants, which the tribunal accepted as accurate.
The tribunal also declared that the respondent had failed to supply properly particularised payslips to C1 and C2 for January to July 2023, except April and May 2023. The unpaid salary originally claimed had been paid, but the payslips showed tax deductions which had not been paid to HMRC; the tribunal found those deductions were not lawfully made and ordered repayment to C1 and C2.
C3 and C4 did not attend the hearing and had not submitted schedules of loss in accordance with tribunal directions. The tribunal found there was no evidential basis for making any award and dismissed their claims under rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | C1 and C2 claims for failure to provide written particulars of the primary terms of employment under s1 Employment Rights Act 1996 were upheld. Awards were made under s38 Employment Act 2002: £938.84 to C1 and £931.68 to C2. | Upheld | — | £1,871 |
| Other | C1 and C2 claims concerning failure to supply properly particularised payslips under s8 Employment Rights Act 1996 were upheld by declaration only. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | C1 was awarded £462 and C2 was awarded £207 for tax deductions shown on payslips but not paid to HMRC. | Upheld | — | £669 |
| Other | C3 and C4 did not attend and had not submitted schedules of loss; their claims were dismissed under rule 47. The judgment does not specify the individual pleaded claims in this section. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,540
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s38 Employment Act 2002
- s8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s12(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 47 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.