Case 1804773/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Riot Hair and Beauty Clinics Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804773/2019
- Decision date
- 26 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Poole’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages, described as non-payment, succeeded. The respondent did not attend or appear. The tribunal ordered Riot Hair and Beauty Clinics Limited to pay £1,788.38 forthwith.
In the note to the judgment, Employment Judge Little recorded that he had asked Miss Poole for information about any financial loss caused by the deduction. She provided information showing that family members had loaned her money in place of the wages she expected to receive, but there was no indication that she had paid interest on those sums. The tribunal said it could not award compensation for items of expenditure she would have paid from wages but instead paid from another source, because that would amount to double recovery.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages by non-payment. It ordered payment of £1,788.38 and did not make any separate compensation award for additional expenditure. | Upheld | — | £1,788 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,788
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.