Case 3201732/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Sterling v Pepe’s Peri Peri Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201732/2020
- Decision date
- 26 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Sterling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Sterling brought claims against Pepe's Peri Peri Limited, which did not enter a response and did not attend. The tribunal found that the claim of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded, but noted that the respondent had already paid the sums due in full, so no further monetary award was made on that head.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for pay for holiday entitlement accrued but unpaid on termination of employment and ordered the respondent to pay £122. A further claim for sums said to be due under an insurance policy in respect of the claimant's stolen handbag was not within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the claim succeeded and recorded that the respondent had now paid the sums due in full. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal upheld the claim for pay for holiday entitlement accrued but unpaid on termination and ordered payment of £122. | Upheld | — | £122 |
| Other | The claim for sums due under an insurance policy in respect of the claimant's stolen handbag was held to be outside the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £122
- 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.