Case 1801167/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person v Mr Wayne Ghosh (Director) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801167/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP on 3 May 2022 before Employment Judge Rogerson. Ms R Johnston appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Wayne Ghosh, a director of Advance Laser Aesthetics Ltd. The tribunal made findings on pay, notice, and holiday entitlement only, and no discrimination or other head of loss appears in the judgment text supplied.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,750 gross. It also found that £50 of expenses and £85.20 of unpaid mileage remained outstanding on termination of the contract. Those sums formed part of the financial award recorded in the judgment.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £634.61 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £444.23. The judgment states a total sum payable of £3,964.04 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award for this claim comprised £2,750 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages, plus £50 expenses and £85.20 unpaid mileage outstanding on termination of the contract. | Upheld | — | £2,885 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £635 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £444 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,964
- 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.