Case 3315224/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Stephanie Haines v Ms Deborah Defoy — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315224/2020
- Decision date
- 5 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Stephanie Haines
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Stephanie Haines succeeded in her claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal ordered Ms Deborah Defoy to pay £2,953.98 in arrears of pay, broken down as £904 for October 2020, £720 for November 2020, £644 for December 2020, £827.18 for January 2021, £747.18 for February 2021 and £827.18 for March 2021. The judgment recorded that £1,716.16 received in universal credit had been deducted from the sums owing to the claimant.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment, in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For that failure, the respondent was ordered to pay an additional £1,076. The total sum ordered to be paid to the claimant was £4,029.98.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded in respect of arrears of pay. The judgment listed monthly arrears totalling £2,953.98 and noted that £1,716.16 received in universal credit had been deducted from the sums owing. | Upheld | — | £2,954 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment, in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered payment of £1,076. | Upheld | — | £1,076 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,030
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.