Case 2204377/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Carmen Sanchez Escriba v Mr Philip Winser and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204377/2021
- Decision date
- 15 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Carmen Sanchez Escriba
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Carmen Sanchez Escriba, succeeded on two statutory complaints heard by Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone at London Central by CVP on 15 November 2021. The tribunal found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages by not paying all wages due on 21 May 2021. The judgment states that the unpaid amount was subsequently paid.
The tribunal also found that the respondent breached section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by failing to provide written itemised pay statements for the entire period of the claimant's employment. The judgment records this as a standalone breach and does not identify any monetary award attached to it.
The tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction to award other remedies or make the other orders sought by the claimant. No separate remedy figures are recorded in the judgment, and the decision is limited to the two upheld findings and the jurisdiction ruling.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent did not pay all wages due on 21 May 2021. The judgment records that the amount due was subsequently paid. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the respondent failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements for the whole period of her employment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.8 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.