Case 2600316/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kayleigh Brenchley v Polyverba UK Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600316/2020
- Decision date
- 29 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kayleigh Brenchley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Ahmed recorded that Polyverba Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss Kayleigh Brenchley’s wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the net sum of £249.99 in respect of that deduction.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with particulars of employment as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal made an award of two weeks' pay at £384.46 per week, producing an additional award of £768.93. The hearing listed for 3 July 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £249.99. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment as required by section 1 ERA 1996 and awarded two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, calculated at £384.46 per week. | Upheld | — | £769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,019
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.