Case 3201905/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Susan Elizabeth Westwood v Locoespresso (Ely) Ltd. and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201905/2020
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Knight Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Susan Elizabeth Westwood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Knight sat alone at East London Hearing Centre on 12 February 2021. The judgment records that the claim against the First Respondent was struck out. The Second Respondent was then found to have wrongfully dismissed the Claimant and to have made an unauthorised deduction from her wages.
The tribunal also found that the Second Respondent failed to provide a written statement of changes to the Claimant's particulars of employment. The judgment orders the Respondent to pay £3,890.93 in total, but it does not set out a split between the individual heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against the First Respondent was struck out. The judgment does not specify the underlying pleaded claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Second Respondent was found to have wrongfully dismissed the Claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Second Respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of changes to particulars of employment. No dedicated taxonomy label applies, so classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,891
- 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.