Case 2217018/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Connor v La Perla Beauty (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217018/2023
- Decision date
- 31 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms C Connor, brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against La Perla Beauty (UK) Limited. The respondent did not attend the hearing, which proceeded in its absence; the tribunal noted the respondent had written stating it had not received the claim form but was aware of the hearing date, and that the respondent had not disputed that the claimant had not been paid. Employment Judge Emery determined that further delay would cause significant prejudice to the claimant.
The tribunal found that the claimant's employment began on 21 August 2023, that her gross monthly salary was £7,916.67, and that she received only £1,500 in respect of September 2023 wages before resigning on 21 December 2023. Applying s.13 and s.27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the judge concluded the claimant was owed wages for the period 1 September 2023 to 21 December 2023 and awarded a gross total of £28,826.94 (September £7,916.67 less £1,500; October £7,916.67; November £7,916.67; December £6,576.93).
The tribunal declined to make any award for the claimant's unpaid expenses, holding that under s.27(2)(b) ERA 1996 such payments fall outside the statutory definition of wages and would be more properly pursued as a breach of contract claim. Relying on Walters t/a Rosewood v Barik, the award was made gross, with the claimant responsible for accounting to HMRC for tax and National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 1 September 2023 to 21 December 2023. Award is gross; claimant responsible for tax/NI. | Upheld | — | £28,827 |
| Other | Claim for unpaid expenses: tribunal held it could not make an award for expenses under the unauthorised deductions jurisdiction (s.27(2)(b) ERA 1996), noting it would more properly be a breach of contract claim. No award made on this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,827
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Walters t/a Rosewood v Barik UKEAT/0053/16
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.