Case 2218640/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Kesar, counsel For the v Ms J Scarbrough-Lang, litigation consultant — 2025
- Case reference
- 2218640/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Kesar, counsel For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central on 1 and 2 May 2025, before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's holiday pay complaint had been withdrawn and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It also dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint and the breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay (wrongful dismissal).
The tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to the claimant's final wages for December 2023 and January 2024, but noted that the respondent was entitled to set off the sum deducted against money owed by the claimant to the respondent. It also found that when proceedings began the respondent had been in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars, but held that exceptional circumstances made any award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 unjust and inequitable, so no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed pursuant to Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay (wrongful dismissal) was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's final wages for the December 2023 and January 2024 pay periods, but the respondent was entitled to set off the sum deducted against money owed by the claimant to the respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that, when proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars, but exceptional circumstances made any award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 unjust and inequitable so no award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 38 of the 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.