Case 2301299/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Catriona Duffus v VIP Rooms London Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301299/2021
- Decision date
- 25 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rea
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Catriona Duffus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Rea on 25 March 2022, substituted VIP Rooms London Limited as respondent under Rule 34. It then upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages, finding that the respondent had made deductions without authority and ordering payment of £604 net.
The tribunal also upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In consequence, and in accordance with section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, it ordered an award equivalent to 4 weeks' pay in the sum of £1,475.
The total sum payable to the claimant was £2,079.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £604 net. | Upheld | — | £604 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide written particulars contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 equivalent to 4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,475 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,079
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Rule 34
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.