Case 3200140/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S. Hare v Persimmon Homes Ltd Essex — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200140/2020
- Decision date
- 2 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S. Hare
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 2 June 2020, Employment Judge Massarella recorded that the Respondent had conceded the Claimant was entitled to specified sums, and judgment was entered by consent on the Claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim in those respects. The tribunal listed the sums as £300 for August commission, £43.40 for expenses, £180 for mileage, £45.50 for 0.5 days' holiday pay, £39 for three hours' pay in respect of training days, and £30 for an HBF deduction.
The judgment also stated that the question of whether there had been a further deduction in respect of Finishing Touches Commission, and whether the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed, would be the subject of a full merits hearing in due course. Those issues were therefore not determined by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondent conceded that the Claimant was entitled, and judgment was entered by consent, for August commission of £300, expenses of £43.40, mileage of £180, 0.5 days holiday pay of £45.50, three hours' pay for training days of £39, and £30 in respect of an HBF deduction. | Upheld | — | £638 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £638
- 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.