Case 2216105/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Rashila Kayastha v The House of Dolls by Lina Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216105/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anthony REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rashila Kayastha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the claim by CVP on 26 June 2024 before Employment Judge Anthony, with the claimant in person and no attendance by the respondent. The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages (covering salary, commission and tips) for the period 30 August 2022 to 30 December 2023, and ordered payment of £2,110.31 gross.
The Tribunal further found that the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £2,288.00 gross. The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was also well-founded, with the respondent ordered to pay £312.00 gross as damages.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested. In each case the claimant is responsible for any income tax or National Insurance payable to HMRC on the gross sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages (salary, commission, tips) for the period 30 August 2022 to 30 December 2023. Award is gross; claimant responsible for income tax and NI. | Upheld | — | £2,110 |
| Holiday pay | Pleaded as unauthorised deduction from wages (holiday pay); well-founded. Award is gross. | Upheld | — | £2,288 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in relation to notice pay; damages awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £312 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,710
- 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.