Case 1806680/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Harper Second Claimant : Ms G Mander v The Potting Shed Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1806680/2025
- Decision date
- 18 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Apperances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Harper Second Claimant : Ms G Mander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Shepherd, sitting alone in a CVP video hearing at which the respondent did not appear, gave a joint judgment in respect of two linked claims (Ms E Harper / 1806680/2025 and Ms G Mander / 1806681/2025) against The Potting Shed Limited.
For this case (Ms Harper, 1806680/2025) the tribunal found the unauthorised deduction from wages claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £539.84, together with a further award of £421.28 (four weeks' gross pay) under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written terms and conditions of employment, making a total of £961.12.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant Ms E Harper - unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £540 |
| Other | Award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written terms and conditions of employment - 4 weeks gross pay. | Upheld | — | £421 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £961
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.