Case 2500543/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J O’Connor v Stessa Leisure Holdings Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500543/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Miss J O'Connor's unfair dismissal claim, recording that it was not well-founded. The judgment does not provide written reasons because reasons were given orally and no request for written reasons was made at the hearing.
The tribunal found that Stessa Leisure Holdings Limited failed to provide the claimant with itemised payslips in January, February, March and April 2022, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award was recorded for that finding.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent was ordered to pay £1341.71 gross in wages, subject to any statutory deductions it was obliged to make, with a 25% uplift of £335.43, giving a grand total of £1677.14.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide itemised payslips in January, February, March and April 2022 contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award comprised £1341.71 gross wages, subject to statutory deductions, plus a 25% uplift of £335.43. | Upheld | — | £1,677 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,677
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 of the 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.