Case 2302753/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Hannah Trimmer v Dr Arash Jafari Heard by video — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302753/2024
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Hannah Trimmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss Trimmer’s complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded. It accepted the payslip figures for October 2023 and November 2023, together with the payments of tax and National Insurance that had been made, and concluded that the claimant had been paid £1,400 in total in instalments.
On that basis, the tribunal held that a balance of £577.38 remained owed to the claimant. It noted that the respondent did not dispute that figure. The order was for payment of £577.38, subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance, although the tribunal said no such deductions were anticipated because the appropriate payments had already been made to HMRC and the November payslip included a tax refund.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint well-founded and ordered payment of £577.38, subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance. The respondent did not dispute the balance owed. | Upheld | — | £577 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £577
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.