Case 2400215/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Bowden v Aesthetics Cheshire Limited (trading as Advanced Aesthetics Trading) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400215/2024
- Decision date
- 3 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Bowden
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Horne found that Aesthetics Cheshire Limited, trading as Advanced Aesthetics Trading, had made a series of unauthorised deductions from Mrs A Bowden's wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £11,750.00 gross for the unlawful deduction from wages claim.
The tribunal also found a breach of contract because the respondent failed to enrol the claimant into an auto-enrolment pension and/or failed to make employer pension contributions. Damages of £1,275.00 net were awarded for that breach of contract claim. The total amount payable under the judgment was £13,025.00.
The judgment notes that the £11,750.00 award is gross and may be subject to tax and national insurance deductions at source if not deducted by the respondent. The judgment was sent to the parties on 3 May 2024 and entered in the register on that date.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made a series of unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £11,750.00. | Upheld | — | £11,750 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to enrol her into an auto-enrolment pension and/or failing to make employer pension contributions, and ordered damages in the net sum of £1,275.00. | Upheld | — | £1,275 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,025
- 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.