Case 1801772/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Trych v Premier Commercial Cleaning Services Ltd HELD: by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801772/2022
- Decision date
- 17 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Trych
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unauthorised deduction of wages, saying she had worked as a cleaning assistant from 13 to 16 December 2021 at Eastfield Medical Centre and had not been paid £115. The tribunal recorded her case that she had obtained the respondent's name from Facebook and that she had been interviewed in Falsgrove Street, Scarborough, but it found that the respondent did not begin trading until 25 April 2022.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that another business, Premier Cleaning Contractors Limited, had been operating before that date and that the claimant may have confused the two businesses. It found as a fact that the respondent was not trading when the claimant said she worked, that the alleged deduction could not have been made by the respondent, and that the claimant had chosen the wrong legal entity as her employer. On that basis, and without needing to go further into the evidence, the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent was not trading during 13 to 16 December 2021, the period the claimant said she worked and was unpaid. It also noted the claimant had named the wrong company as her employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13(1) 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.