Case 2207483/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Piteira v Benjamin Tolla (trading as Curtis Sloane) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207483/2020
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Piteira
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first addressed notification and service. It held that Benjamin Tolla, trading as Curtis Sloane, had been properly notified of the proceedings even though some papers were addressed to Curtis Sloane Limited, because he knew a claim was being pursued against him, had received the tribunal's email orders, and chose not to open later letters. The tribunal therefore proceeded to determine the claims on their merits.
The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of salary for July and August 2020 was dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant could not explain why the salary payments were said to be incorrect, accepted that she was paid £1,776.67 net for August 2020, and noted that the July 2020 payment of £1,480.92 appeared to be a pro-rata payment for the period from 8 July to 30 July 2020. The claimant did not allege any other unauthorised deductions.
The tribunal upheld the holiday pay complaint. It found that the claimant had accrued 4.3 days of statutory holiday on resignation and had not been paid for that untaken entitlement. Using the government holiday entitlement calculator, it awarded £430 gross. It also upheld the complaint that the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment. The draft contract sent to the claimant named the wrong parties and role, and when the claimant corrected it the respondent refused to sign it or provide any alternative particulars, so the tribunal made the statutory minimum award of £1,000 gross under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The tribunal also found a breach in relation to itemised pay statements for July and August 2020, but its written reasons varied the orally announced award so that no monetary sum was payable on that issue. It held that the relevant unnotified deduction was outside the 13 weeks immediately before the claim was presented, so s.12(4) ERA 1996 did not allow a monetary award. The claimant's sexual harassment complaint was not finally determined at this hearing; the tribunal allowed time for further particulars and listed that issue for a case management hearing on 7 February 2022.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint about salary for July and August 2020. The tribunal found the claimant could not show any unauthorised deduction; it noted that the August payment was accepted and that the July payment appeared to be a pro-rata payment from the claimant's start date. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay accrued but untaken statutory holiday on termination. The tribunal found 4.3 days of accrued leave and awarded £430 gross, with tax and NI to be accounted for. | Upheld | — | £430 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996. The draft contract contained wrong parties and employment details, the respondent refused to sign it, and the tribunal awarded the two-week statutory minimum under s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised pay statements for July and August 2020 in breach of s.8 ERA 1996. The written reasons varied the earlier oral award and made a declaration only; no monetary award was permitted because the relevant deduction was outside the 13-week window in s.12(4) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,430
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 86 ET Rules
- Rule 91 ET Rules
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.12(4) 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.