Ms A Marjanovic v Ms K Sudeck Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2023

Ms A Marjanovic worked for Ms K Sudeck as a nanny from September to December 2022. The offer letter and contract provided for 30 hours a week at £15 net per hour, giving weekly net pay of £450, but the claimant actually worked 35 hours a week and was paid £525 net each week. She was not given payslips at the time her wages were paid.

After the employment ended, the respondent asked Nannytax to produce payslips, but those documents reflected the original 30-hour arrangement and £450 net weekly pay rather than the actual working pattern and pay. The tribunal found that the respondent therefore failed to provide itemised pay statements at or before the time the claimant was paid. The judge accepted the claimant's bank statements as showing weekly net payments of £525.

The tribunal also noted that the claimant wanted to argue about breach of the settlement terms reached at an earlier hearing, but the judge explained that this was not an issue before the tribunal. Applying section 11(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that it could consider whether the amount included in the pay statement was accurate, but not the particulars that should appear in the payslip.

The claimant's schedule of loss did not identify any direct loss flowing from the payslip errors. The judge said there was a possible underpayment of pension of £45.45 and a likely tax underpayment of about £225, with National Insurance less than that amount, but the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make any order in relation to those sums. The judgment recorded that there were no outstanding issues and that the claim was disposed of.