Case 1307869/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Djuikouo v Innovate Beauty Labs Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307869/2019
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Djuikouo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered under Rule 21. The tribunal found that Innovate Beauty Labs Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Ms Djuikouo's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,113 gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance, calculated from 257 hours worked at £9 per hour less £1,200 already received.
The tribunal also declared that the respondent had failed to give Ms Djuikouo pay statements as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award was made for that declaration.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded gross £1,113, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance, calculated as 257 hours worked at £9.00 per hour less £1,200 already received. | Upheld | — | £1,113 |
| Other | Declaration that the respondent failed to give the claimant pay statements as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; no separate monetary award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,113
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 8 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.