Case 3305299/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Heard, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3305299/2018
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms G Binks, Mr D Sutton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Heard, of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford, the tribunal recorded by consent that the claimant was entitled to two weeks' notice pay of £1,817.30 gross. It also found that, at the start of the claim, she had not been given a section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 statement of terms and conditions. Applying section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and the section 227 ERA 1996 cap, the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay of £1,956.00.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had underpaid commission by £10.71 gross and had failed to pay sick pay of £142.96 gross. Separately, it held that the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant because of her sex, did not harass her within the meaning of section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, and did not victimise her within the meaning of section 27 of that Act.
On the pay comparison issue, the tribunal found there was a material factor within section 69 of the Equality Act 2010 for the difference in pay between the claimant and her two named comparators. The monetary awards recorded in the judgment therefore total £3,926.97 gross.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | By consent, the claimant was entitled to two weeks' notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,817 |
| Other | Award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the claimant had not been given a section 1 ERA 1996 statement of terms and conditions; four weeks' pay was awarded, subject to the section 227 ERA 1996 cap. | Upheld | — | £1,956 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent underpaid commission in this gross amount. | Upheld | — | £11 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to pay sick pay in this gross amount. | Upheld | — | £143 |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant because of her sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found no harassment within section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found no victimisation within section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,927
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 1 ERA 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- section 227 ERA 1996
- section 26 EqA 2010
- section 27 EqA 2010
- section 69 EqA 2010
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.