Case 2302555/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Anna Lebedeva v Mr Vahid Nowkandi t/a Beluga — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302555/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anna Lebedeva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge D Wright, sitting alone at London South via CVP on 7 March 2023, upheld the Claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages. The tribunal found that the Respondent had made unlawful deductions in the sum of £70 and ordered payment of that amount in conclusion of the claim.
The remaining claims brought under section 24(2) ERA 1996 were dismissed. The tribunal held that the claim for loss of future graphic design work was not well founded, and said in the alternative that it fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and should have been brought in the County Court. The claim for the cost of a missed birthday party was also dismissed as not well founded.
The tribunal further dismissed the claims for the cost of taking the case through ACAS, presenting it to the Tribunal and preparing for the hearing, and for lost income arising from stress related to the claim. It said the ACAS/Tribunal/preparation claim was in substance a claim for litigation costs. The only monetary award recorded was £70.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the Respondent had made unlawful deductions from the Claimant's wages in the sum of £70. | Upheld | — | £70 |
| Other | Claim under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for loss of future graphic design work with the Respondent; the tribunal said it was not well founded and, alternatively, outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and a matter for the County Court. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for the cost of a missed birthday party; dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for the cost of taking the case through ACAS, presenting it to the Tribunal and preparing for the hearing; the tribunal said this was in substance a claim for litigation costs. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for lost income arising from stress related to the claim; dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £70
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.24(2) ERA 1996
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.