Case 2415420/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Marlena Widurska v Perfect You Aesthetic Clinic Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415420/2021
- Decision date
- 10 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Marlena Widurska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Widurska succeeded on her claims for wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages, unpaid holiday pay, and an award under section 38(3)(a)-(b) of the Employment Act 2002. The tribunal awarded £313.00 in net notice pay for wrongful dismissal, £70.78 in unpaid net wages, £375.60 in net holiday pay, and £712.80 as two weeks' gross pay because the respondent had failed to provide a written contract of employment.
The total award was £1,472.18. The judgment does not set out separate compensation heads beyond those sums, and the extracted text does not record any further reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The hearing took place by CVP on 6 June 2022. The claimant attended in person and the respondent did not appear.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded as net notice pay. | Upheld | — | £313 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as unpaid net wages. | Upheld | — | £71 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as net holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £376 |
| Other | Two weeks' gross pay awarded under section 38(3)(a)-(b) of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written contract of employment. | Upheld | — | £713 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,472
- 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.