Case 3201134/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Grace Shepherdson [First Claimant] Miss Madison Paris-Matić [Second Claimant] v LOOP International Ltd FINAL HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201134/2023
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Grace Shepherdson [First Claimant] Miss Madison Paris-Matić [Second Claimant]
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing was before Employment Judge Shore on 20 October 2023, heard in private by video at the East London Hearing Centre. The respondent did not appear. Both claimants succeeded in claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and holiday pay.
For Grace Shepherdson, the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £750 gross, together with a 10% uplift of £75 because the respondent failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. It also found her holiday pay claim well founded and awarded £2,769.20 gross, with a further 10% uplift of £276.92 for the same ACAS non-compliance.
The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to give Grace Shepherdson a written statement of terms and conditions of employment as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It recorded that she had succeeded in a claim specified by Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002 and awarded four weeks' gross pay, capped at £643 per week, producing an award of £2,572.
The same findings were made for Madison Paris-Matić. The tribunal awarded £750 gross for unauthorised deduction from wages, uplifted by 10% to £825, and £3,046.16 gross for holiday pay, uplifted by 10% to £3,350.78. It also awarded her four weeks' gross pay capped at £643 per week, namely £2,572, for the failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions.
In addition, the tribunal made a preparation time order for each claimant of 20 hours at £41 per hour, amounting to £810 each. The total payable was £7,253.12 to Grace Shepherdson and £7,557.78 to Madison Paris-Matić.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant: unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal awarded £750 gross plus a 10% ACAS uplift of £75. | Upheld | — | £825 |
| Holiday pay | First claimant: unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal awarded £2,769.20 gross plus a 10% ACAS uplift of £276.92. | Upheld | — | £3,046 |
| Other | First claimant: failure to give a written statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; award of four weeks' gross pay capped at £643 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,572 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant: unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal awarded £750 gross plus a 10% ACAS uplift of £75. | Upheld | — | £825 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant: unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal awarded £3,046.16 gross plus a 10% ACAS uplift of £304.62. | Upheld | — | £3,351 |
| Other | Second claimant: failure to give a written statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; award of four weeks' gross pay capped at £643 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,572 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,811
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures
- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Schedule 5 of the 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.