Case 2211421/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Wickramaratne v Yuzefi Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2211421/2022
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- by CVP from the Central London Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Wickramaratne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms H Wickramaratne, brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Yuzefi Limited. The hearing took place by CVP from the Central London Tribunal on 28 June 2024 before Employment Judge Woodhead sitting alone. Both sides were represented, with the claimant appearing in person.
At the start of the hearing the parties agreed that the claimant was entitled to £979 for accrued but untaken holiday at the end of her employment, and that £100 was properly deducted from that sum because the claimant owed money to the respondent. The tribunal then considered the further deductions made by the respondent which reduced the claimant’s last wages payment to nil.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and dismissed it. No separate monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | At the start of the hearing the parties agreed the claimant was entitled to £979 in respect of accrued but untaken holiday at the end of employment, and that £100 was properly deducted to account for monies owed by the claimant to the respondent. The tribunal dismissed the complaint about the further deductions that reduced the final wages payment to zero. | 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.