Case 2213440/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms U Ikram v The Gloss Clinic — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213440/2023
- Decision date
- 16 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms U Ikram
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms U Ikram’s claim was presented outside the time limit in s23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but that it was not reasonably practicable for her to present it within that time and that it was brought within a further reasonable period. On that basis it went on to determine the merits of the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and found it well-founded in respect of deductions made between December 2022 and March 2023.
The respondent was ordered to pay £2,546, being the gross sum deducted from the claimant’s wages. The tribunal also found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and increased the compensatory award by 20% under s207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, producing an uplift of £509.20.
The tribunal further found that, when the proceedings were begun, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. It found no exceptional circumstances making an award of two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable, and was not satisfied that four weeks’ gross pay should be awarded. The resulting award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 was £880. The total payable by the respondent was £3,935.20.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period December 2022 to March 2023. It held the claim was out of time under s23(2) ERA 1996 but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and it was presented within a further reasonable period. The award consisted of the gross sum deducted, £2,546, plus a 20% ACAS uplift of £509.20. | Upheld | — | £3,055 |
| Other | The tribunal found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. It found no exceptional circumstances and made an award equal to two weeks' gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002, rejecting four weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £880 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,935
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable / further reasonable period
- s207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.