Case 2302581/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Kate Reed & Ashley Nolan v Willow & Hardy’s Tunbridge Wells Limited & and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302581/2022
- Decision date
- 24 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hamour
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Kate Reed & Ashley Nolan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 13 March 2023 by video before Employment Judge Hamour, sitting alone, the respondent did not appear and was not represented. The tribunal corrected the name of the first respondent to Willow & Hardy’s Tunbridge Wells Limited and added The Disappointed Raisin Wine Bar Company Limited as a respondent.
The tribunal held that the claimants' claims for failure to provide itemised pay statements were well-founded under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For Kate Reed, the judgment found no itemised pay statements had been provided for August, November and December 2021 and for January, February, March, April, May, June and July 2022. For Ashley Nolan, the tribunal found no itemised pay statements had been provided for August, November and December 2021 and for January, May and June 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found the claimants' claims for failure to provide itemised pay statements well-founded under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records separate missing pay periods for Kate Reed and Ashley Nolan. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 8 Employment Rights Act 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.