Case 1600192/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Eastwood v Ahedron Limited Heard: via video — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600192/2020
- Decision date
- 8 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Eastwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Eastwood brought claims against Ahedron Limited for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deductions from wages, and sexual harassment. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because she did not have the required length of continuous service.
The tribunal upheld the breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims and ordered the respondent to pay a combined gross sum of £1,687.17 in respect of those claims. It also upheld the sexual harassment claim and awarded £1,000.00 for injury to feelings, making a total award of £2,687.17.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant lacked the required length of continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded in relation to the breach of contract element of the combined gross award of £1,687.17 with the unlawful deduction claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded on the unauthorised deduction from wages claim; the award was included in the combined gross sum of £1,687.17 with the breach of contract claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Sexual harassment; the tribunal awarded £1,000.00 for injury to feelings. | Upheld | Sex | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,687
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,687
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.