Case 2304817/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Urzedowska v Croydon Therapy 4 You and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304817/2022
- Decision date
- 16 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rea Representation
- Venue
- Croydon ET in public
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Urzedowska
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Urzedowska was a "worker" within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that she worked under a worker contract with the Second Respondent, who was her employer. On that basis, it held that the Second Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from her wages.
The tribunal ordered the Second Respondent to pay £2,077 for the unlawful deductions, and directed the Claimant to account to HMRC for any income tax or National Insurance deductions owed. It also found that the Second Respondent had failed to provide written particulars of the worker contract and ordered a further £960, described in the judgment as equal to two weeks' pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the Second Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,077. | Upheld | — | £2,077 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the Second Respondent failed to provide the Claimant with written particulars of her worker contract and ordered £960, described as equal to two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £960 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,037
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.