Case 2415364/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Ketteringham v Skinnyjab Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415364/2020
- Decision date
- 20 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Ketteringham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Batten sat alone by video on 13 May 2021. Ms S Ketteringham was represented by her litigation friend, Mr A Lees, and Skinnyjab Ltd was represented by Ms D McGuire, solicitor.
The tribunal held that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £288.00 for that breach.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to give the claimant a written statement of particulars of employment. It made an award of £1,152.00 pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay failed and were dismissed. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £1,440.00.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £288.00. | Upheld | — | £288 |
| Other | Award made pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to give the claimant a written statement of particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,152 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,440
- across all upheld claims
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.