Case 2402020/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs A Livesley v Mrs Carol Pratt t/a Pitstop Deli — 2021

Case reference: 2402020/2021
Decision date: 2 July 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Buzzard

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs A Livesley

Respondent

Mrs Carol Pratt t/a Pitstop Deli

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal declared that Mrs Carol Pratt t/a Pitstop Deli failed to provide Mrs A Livesley with itemised pay statements within the timeframe required by s.8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal did not award compensation for that failure because it found that no un-notified deductions had occurred.

Mrs Livesley's unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the deductions made were excepted deductions within s.14 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because they were reimbursement of an overpayment of wages.

The claim for unpaid holiday pay succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay £46.30, and the parties agreed that sum represented five hours' pay.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The tribunal declared that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements within the timeframe required by s.8 ERA 1996. No compensation was awarded because no un-notified deductions were found to have occurred.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found the deductions were excepted deductions within s.14 ERA 1996 because they were reimbursement of an overpayment of wages.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The claimant succeeded on unpaid holiday pay. The respondent was ordered to pay £46.30, which the parties agreed represented five hours' pay.	Upheld	—	£46

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £46; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.