Case 2402412/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Mashingaidze v Advinia Health Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402412/2025
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Mashingaidze
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, employed by the respondent since 24 February 2025, brought a single accepted complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages. She did not attend the hearing and was represented by her husband; the respondent called two witnesses. The sums in issue comprised a £475 Home Office visa application fee, £200 borrowing costs, £648 in claimed unpaid wages relating to the difference between 20 hours per week offered between 27 March and 13 May 2025 and the 38.5 hours she said she should have received, and £275 travelling expenses. The claimant had already been reimbursed £1,200 for sponsorship solicitors' fees on 16 April 2025.
The Tribunal found that the signed statement of terms and conditions dated 25 February 2025 did not commit the respondent to any fixed number of hours, and contained an entire agreement clause superseding any prior representations. Accordingly the failure to offer or pay for more than 20 hours per week was neither a breach of contract nor an unauthorised deduction from wages. The Home Office fee paid directly by the claimant, the borrowing costs and the travelling expenses were either not properly the subject of an unauthorised deduction claim, outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, or unevidenced. The judge noted a gap in the evidence as to whether the claimant could lawfully have worked more than 20 hours per week under her sponsorship, but did not need to resolve it.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was held not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Single accepted complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages. Claimant sought £475 Home Office application fee, £200 borrowing costs, £648 unpaid wages (for shortfall between 20 hrs/wk offered and 38.5 hrs/wk claimed) and £275 travelling expenses, though representative indicated a reduced overall figure of £850. Tribunal found the statement of terms and conditions did not commit the respondent to a fixed number of hours, so non-payment for additional hours was not an unauthorised deduction; the other heads were either outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction (e.g. borrowing costs, travelling expenses, breach of contract while still employed) or unevidenced. Other matters raised in the ET1 (unfair labour practices, extortion, intimidation) had not been accepted as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 212A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.