Case 1801665/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Helen Windross v Leeds Diocesan Trust AT A HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801665/2020
- Decision date
- 27 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Helen Windross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by telephone on 26 May 2020 before Employment Judge Lancaster and the judgment was entered by consent. The tribunal declared that Leeds Diocesan Trust had failed to give Mrs Helen Windross pay statements in accordance with section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claim under section 12(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal recorded that there were no relevant unnotified deductions in the 13-week period immediately preceding the date of the application to the tribunal.
Mrs Windross's breach of contract claim for notice pay succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay damages representing the balance of one week's pay in lieu of notice due, which the judgment quantified as £51.00 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Declared that the respondent failed to give the claimant pay statements in accordance with section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The section 12(4) ERA 1996 claim was dismissed upon withdrawal; the tribunal noted there were no relevant unnotified deductions in the 13-week period immediately preceding the application. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim for notice pay succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay the balance of one week's pay in lieu of notice due, £51.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £51 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £51
- 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.