Case 3307881/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Unrepresented but assisted by her daughter Diana For the v Ms Ash-D'Souza, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307881/2020
- Decision date
- 3 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Unrepresented but assisted by her daughter Diana For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Prominent Ventures Ltd failed to provide Mrs A Da Costa Pereira with itemised pay statements for the period 8 November 2019 to 3 April 2020. It accepted the claimant's evidence that the issue had been raised repeatedly, including in an email of 16 March 2020, and noted that the respondent continued making payments for shifts worked during that period without providing statements. The tribunal also accepted that statements were later produced during the ACAS conciliation process on 22 July 2020, but the respondent's advocate accepted those statements did not contain the hours information required by s.8(2) ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal made a declaration under s.12 ERA 1996 that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements between 8 November 2019 and 3 April 2020. The order paragraph contains an apparent date inconsistency ('3 April 2019'), but the reasons repeatedly identify the relevant period as 8 November 2019 to 3 April 2020. A preparation time order was also made for 3 hours at the rate of £41 per hour, totalling £123. | Upheld | — | £123 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £123
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.11(1) ERA 1996
- s.12(3) ERA 1996
- s.8(2) ERA 1996
- Rules 75(2) & 76(b) Employment Tribunal Rules
- Rule 79(2) Employment Tribunal Rules
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.