Case 2200001/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Z Coffey v The Sports PR Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200001/2024
- Decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Z Coffey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, and without any admission of liability by the respondent, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages in relation to alleged unpaid statutory sick pay succeeded. It awarded compensation of £218.80 payable by the respondent to the claimant.
The claimant's complaint of failure to provide an itemised pay statement was withdrawn and dismissed. The remaining breach of contract complaint concerning unpaid expenses of £29.53 was not determined in this judgment and remained listed for a final hearing on 3 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | By consent and without admission of liability, the complaint of breach of contract in relation to alleged unpaid statutory sick pay succeeded. A separate breach of contract complaint for unpaid expenses of £29.53 remained outstanding and was listed for a later final hearing. | Upheld | — | £219 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent and without admission of liability, the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages in relation to alleged unpaid statutory sick pay succeeded. The award was stated as £218.80 for both the breach of contract and unlawful deduction complaints concerning statutory sick pay, so the amount may not be separately apportioned between them. | Upheld | — | £219 |
| Other | The complaint of failure to provide an itemised pay statement was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £219
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £219
- 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.