Case 1403071/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Kimberly Frank v Vijay Mistry — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403071/2022
- Decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kimberly Frank
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 14 July 2023 at Bristol by CVP, before Employment Judge Le Grys, with both parties appearing in person, the tribunal dealt with two matters arising from the employment relationship between Kimberly Frank and Vijay Mistry. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £405.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had not provided the claimant with written particulars of employment. It therefore made an award of two weeks' pay pursuant to section 38 Employment Act 2002, quantified at £810.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties on 31 July 2023. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £1,215.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £405. | Upheld | — | £405 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent did not provide written particulars of employment and ordered payment of two weeks' pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002, amounting to £810. | Upheld | — | £810 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,215
- 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.