Case 1805742/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Roaf v AY & Y Patel Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805742/2022
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moxon Representation
- Venue
- Leeds via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Roaf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds via CVP on 3 March 2023 before Employment Judge Moxon. The claimant was Ms S Roaf and the respondent was AY & Y Patel Ltd. The judgment records the final disposition of the claims and does not award any remedy.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed. The complaint of failure to pay holiday pay was dismissed. The complaint of failure to pay notice pay was dismissed.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed. The complaint of failure to provide proper written particulars of employment was also dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded as a complaint of failure to pay notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Recorded as a complaint of failure to provide proper written particulars of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.