Case 1801354/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss Sokolowska (2) Mr Zalewski v Beever Personal Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801354/2023
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss Sokolowska (2) Mr Zalewski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Leeds video hearing on 15 May 2023 before Employment Judge Knowles, the tribunal recorded that the correct identity of the respondent was Beever Personal Care Limited. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Mr Zalewski's claim was dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules. Miss Sokolowska's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was found well-founded, and the Respondent was ordered to pay her £884.60 gross, subject to any deductions of employee income tax and/or national insurance required by law.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the First Claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim well-founded and ordered payment of £884.60 gross, with any required employee income tax and/or national insurance deductions to be made by the Respondent. | Upheld | — | £885 |
| Other | The written record dismisses the Second Claimant's claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, but does not identify the substantive nature of that claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £885
- 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.