Case 2304271/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Lewin v Farzana Shakoor t/a The Shoe Store — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304271/2018
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Lewin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms P Lewin started work for Farzana Shakoor t/a The Shoe Store on 11 December 2017 as a Sales Assistant and was both a worker and an employee. Applying the section 230 ERA 1996 definitions and the Ready-Mixed Concrete / Hall v Lorimer approach, it found she worked personally, had no right of substitution, was controlled as to where, when and how she worked, and that the evidence did not support self-employed status.
On pay, the tribunal accepted that the agreed rate was the National Living Wage but found the claimant was in fact paid £6.00 per hour throughout. It accepted her hours evidence in part from rota photographs, bank records and oral evidence, and noted the respondent had produced no documents in advance despite directions. It awarded £564 gross for 11 December 2017 to 28 February 2018, then found further underpayments from 1 March 2018 onwards, including £231 gross for March 2018, £1,182.18 gross for 1 April 2018 to 12 August 2018, and £1,335.02 gross for 13 August 2018 to 19 September 2018, making £3,312.20 gross in total. It also found accrued annual leave up to 1 March 2018 remained unpaid and awarded £300 gross, but could not calculate later leave periods with precision.
The dismissal complaint failed. The tribunal found words were said that amounted to a dismissal, but the reason was a dispute over paperwork connected with the sale of shoes, not the claimant's assertion of a statutory right to pay, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 ERA 1996 was dismissed. The wrongful dismissal / notice claim succeeded because there was no evidence that the claimant committed a repudiatory breach of contract, and the tribunal awarded £266.22 net for one week's notice pay. Because the claimant succeeded on some claims, the tribunal also made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment; the order records £1,064.81, while the reasons calculate £1,064.88 for four weeks' pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Included the National Living Wage underpayment claim. The tribunal found the claimant was paid £6.00 per hour throughout and awarded £3,312.20 gross for underpayments across the employment period. | Upheld | — | £3,312 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal limited the award to accrued annual leave up to 1 March 2018 and found later leave periods could not be calculated with sufficient precision. | Upheld | — | £300 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed, but not because she asserted a statutory right to pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found no repudiatory breach by the claimant and awarded one week's notice pay based on 34 hours at £7.83 per hour. | Upheld | — | £266 |
| Other | This was the award for failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The dispositive section states £1,064.81, while paragraph 79 of the reasons calculates £1,064.88 for four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,065 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,943
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready-Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Express & Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton
- Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer
- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulations 13 to 17 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.