Case 1806382/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Charlotte Kennedy v Miss Andrea Mollan AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1806382/2019
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Charlotte Kennedy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Charlotte Kennedy, brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Miss Andrea Mollan. The tribunal dismissed that complaint. No separate monetary award was made on the deduction claim itself.
The tribunal also dealt with the payslip issue under section 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It declared that the August and September 2019 wage slips did not contain the required particulars in relation to the amount of, or the reasons for, deductions made to recover overpayments of statutory sick pay.
Pursuant to sections 12(4) and (5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the aggregate sum of the unnotified deductions, which the judgment recorded as £527.00. The judgment was given orally at the hearing on 20 December 2019, and written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismissed the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment declared, under section 12(3) ERA 1996, that the August and September 2019 wages slips did not contain the required particulars about deductions made to recover overpayments of statutory sick pay, and ordered payment of the aggregate sum of the unnotified deductions. | Upheld | — | £527 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £527
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 12(3) ERA 1996
- sections 12(4) and (5) ERA 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.