Case 2200168/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Olivia Shenton-Sharp v JSPD Consulting Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200168/2024
- Decision date
- 30 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sugarman Representation
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Olivia Shenton-Sharp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sugarman, sitting alone at Central London Employment Tribunal via CVP on 16 May 2024, granted the Respondent's application for an extension of time to serve the ET3. The Claimant represented herself; the Respondent was represented by Mr Mortimer, a shareholder.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim of unlawful deduction from wages under sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of basic pay and commission due in November 2023, ordering payment of £1,043.14 gross (comprising £755.86 gross commission and £287.28 gross basic pay). The tribunal also upheld the Claimant's claim for accrued but untaken holiday on termination under Regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, ordering payment of £68.40 gross.
The Claimant's claim for compensation for stress and inconvenience failed and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided in this document.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under sections 13 and 23 ERA 1996 in respect of basic pay and commission due in November 2023. Award is £755.86 gross commission plus £287.28 gross basic pay. | Upheld | — | £1,043 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday on termination under Regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £68 |
| Other | Claim for compensation for stress and inconvenience. The judgment does not specify the legal basis; classified as 'other' to avoid invention. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,112
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.