Case 2300006/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Landez v Maxine Johns and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300006/2023
- Decision date
- 16 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs H Landez
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs H Landez, brought a claim against Maxine Johns and Maxonique Brow & Nail Bar Ltd. At a hearing on 16 June 2023 before Employment Judge Codd, the tribunal found that the first respondent unlawfully deducted one month's salary from the claimant's wages.
The tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay £2,375 gross. It stated that the respondent was responsible for deducting tax and national insurance from that sum and that the net amount payable to the claimant was £1,802.
The tribunal also recorded that no order was made against the second respondent, Maxonique Brow & Nail Bar Ltd, and that the second respondent was discharged from the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the first respondent unlawfully deducted one month's salary from the claimant's wages. The award was stated as £2,375 gross, with the respondent responsible for tax and national insurance deductions and payment of the net amount of £1,802. | Upheld | — | £2,375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,375
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.