Case 6014116/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Strojny v Parade Tearooms Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6014116/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Strojny
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded and held that she was unfairly dismissed. A basic award was made equivalent to 8 weeks' gross pay, reduced by 10% for contributory conduct.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in July 2024 contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered payment of the net shortfall between the wages due and those actually paid.
The claimant's breach of contract claim in respect of notice pay was also well-founded, and the tribunal ordered payment of 4 weeks' net pay. Written reasons were not provided as reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £3,323.09 (8 weeks gross pay, after a 10% reduction for contributory conduct). No compensatory award figure stated in the written record. | Upheld | — | £3,323 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction in July 2024 contrary to s.13 ERA 1996; £800.52 net awarded (difference between net pay due of £1,734.44 and £933.92 paid). | Upheld | — | £801 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim well-founded; 4 weeks net pay of £1,602.25 awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,602 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,726
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,323
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 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.