Case 2206634/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms E J Smith - Director — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206634/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London Central by CVP on 2 November 2022 before Employment Judge A M Buchanan, sitting alone. It amended the respondent's name to Skinwork Professional Limited trading as Skinwork Global Limited. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided.
The claimant succeeded on the unpaid holiday pay complaint. The tribunal found that the claim was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £484.26 forthwith as a gross sum, leaving any income tax and employee national insurance to be dealt with by the claimant.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed as not well-founded. The breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay was not determined on the merits because it was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid holiday pay was found well-founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £484.26 forthwith as a gross payment, with the claimant responsible for any income tax and employee national insurance due. | Upheld | — | £484 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was found not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint in respect of notice pay was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £484
- 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.