Case 1805123/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Thomas Berry and Natasha Ward T/a The Lime Leaf — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805123/2019
- Decision date
- 4 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn Miss D James-Fisher v Thomas Berry and Natasha Ward t/a The Lime Leaf, heard in Leeds on 22 January 2020 before Employment Judge Evans, the tribunal amended the respondents’ names by consent. It then held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim failed.
The tribunal did, however, find that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract of employment. It ordered the respondents to pay damages of £79.63 for that breach. It also found that the respondents had failed to pay the claimant the amount due under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £138.07.
The tribunal rejected the claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages claim. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract of employment and ordered damages of £79.63. | Upheld | — | £80 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found that the respondents failed to pay the amount due under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered £138.07. | Upheld | — | £138 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondents did not make unlawful deductions from the claimant’s wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £218
- 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.