Case 2303064/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Shakira Child v Orchid Health Ltd t/a Vybe Hair Design — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303064/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Shakira Child
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent failed to present a response in time, and judgment was entered for the Claimant under Rule 22. The hearing proceeded in the Respondent's absence after that Rule 22 decision.
The tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded, covering deductions from 22 September 2022 to 26 February 2024. It ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant 2247.53 as the gross sum deducted, with the Claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent failed to provide written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period 1 January 2024 to 26 February 2024. No award was made for that finding.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a series of unauthorised deductions from wages between 22 September 2022 and 26 February 2024. | Upheld | — | £2,248 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the Respondent failed to give written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996, but made no award for this. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,248
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 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.