Case 2411243/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Oluchukwu Igwesi v Baby Ultrasound Clinic Prestayn Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411243/2021
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Asif Khan
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Oluchukwu Igwesi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 10 February 2022 before Employment Judge Asif Khan, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £876.51, described as the amount unlawfully deducted.
The separate breach of contract claim did not proceed to determination on the merits. The judgment states that it was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it at the hearing. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
The accompanying notice states that any sums payable under the judgment carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, and records an applicable stipulated rate of 8% for this case.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £876.51 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. | Upheld | — | £877 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the breach of contract claim was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it at the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £877
- 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.