Case 3305671/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Leanne Cooper v Penrose Estate Agents Heard — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305671/2022
- Decision date
- 7 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Saward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Leanne Cooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 15 December 2022 before Employment Judge Saward sitting alone, the claimant's notice pay claim was withdrawn by consent, as was the claim for £1,210.00 for unpaid wages. The tribunal recorded no substantive findings on those withdrawn claims.
The remaining claim was for unpaid commission of £930.88. The tribunal held that the commission claim arose after the claimant's employment had ended and therefore fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, so that claim was dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was withdrawn by consent. The judgment does not expressly classify it, but it is treated here as a breach of contract claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for £1,210.00 for unpaid wages was withdrawn by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid commission of £930.88 was dismissed because the tribunal held the alleged debt arose after the claimant's employment had ended and the tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.