Case 6007765/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Laura Pople v Mrs Leanne Newman-Ford (t/a “Shear Divine”) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6007765/2024
- Decision date
- 6 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Laura Pople
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cardiff on 28 and 29 November 2024, before Employment Judge S Jenkins, the tribunal dismissed Ms Laura Pople's unfair dismissal complaint against Mrs Leanne Newman-Ford trading as Shear Divine. No award was made on that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide written itemised pay slips required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found unnotified deductions from pay totalling £58.10 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant.
The judgment further recorded that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but held that section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 did not permit any uplift because Schedule 5 did not apply to claims in respect of written itemised payslips.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide written itemised pay slips required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award is stated for that finding in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unnotified deductions from pay totalling £58.10 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £58 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £58
- 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.