Case 6019599/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jessica Hornsby v Pemberton AI Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019599/2024
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jessica Hornsby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to respond to the claim, and judgment was therefore entered for the claimant. It found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements for July 2024 and September 2024, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also awarded compensation for unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £1,666.67 in respect of September 2024. The extracted text renders that figure as '£1.666.67'. No separate monetary award is stated for the itemised pay statement failure.
The award for unlawful deduction from wages was treated as earnings under section 62 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The respondent was required to treat it as wages and account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance over the period of the claimant's employment, with the net amount to be paid directly to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted text renders the award as '£1.666.67'; the amount entered here is 1666.67. | Upheld | — | £1,667 |
| Other | The judgment records that the respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements for July 2024 and September 2024, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary sum is stated for this finding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,667
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,667
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.62 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
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.