Case 1301401/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms J Guice, parent For the v Ms E Afriyie, employment consultant — 2022

Case reference: 1301401/2022
Decision date: 22 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Klimov

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms J Guice, parent For the

Respondent

Ms E Afriyie, employment consultant

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge P Klimov on 21 and 22 December 2022, upheld the claimant's claims that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages and had been in breach of contract. The reason given was the respondent's failure to pay the claimant for overtime work outside his normal 40-hour working week. The judgment recorded that compensation for the unlawful deduction, or alternatively damages for breach of contract, would be determined at a remedy hearing if the parties did not agree the amount.

The tribunal also upheld the unfair dismissal claim. The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent and that compensation for unfair dismissal would likewise be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed. No final monetary award is recorded in the liability judgment.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages by failing to pay overtime outside the normal 40-hour working week. Compensation was to be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal also found the respondent was in breach of contract for the same failure to pay overtime. Damages were to be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed by the parties.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and said compensation would be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.