Case 2418458/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Saffron Young v The Cutting Gallery — 2022
- Case reference
- 2418458/2020
- Decision date
- 22 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newstead Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Saffron Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Newstead Taylor sat alone on 16 March 2022. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that The Cutting Gallery had made an unlawful deduction from Miss Saffron Young's wages.
The order records that the deduction was made up of two agreed sums: £265.65 in respect of an unpaid pay rise and £696.60 in respect of annual leave accrued but unpaid on termination. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross total of £962.25.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. A separate notice set out the tribunal interest information, but no separate interest figure was awarded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages. The gross sum awarded comprised £265.65 for an unpaid pay rise and £696.60 for annual leave accrued but unpaid on termination. | Upheld | — | £962 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £962
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.