Case 3203217/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Ayesha Douglas v Choice Recruitment Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203217/2022
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Townley Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Ayesha Douglas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Ayesha Douglas attended in person at the East London Hearing Centre; Choice Recruitment Group Ltd did not attend and was not represented. Employment Judge Townley held that her claim for unpaid salary for February 2022 succeeded, as did her claim for accrued holiday pay for 2021 to 2022. The judgment also records that she had not been provided with a statement of written particulars of employment.
The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £3,272.29 in respect of the successful claims. The award was itemised as £1,204.44 for unpaid salary, calculated as 2 weeks at £602; £926.29 for unpaid holiday pay, calculated as 11.7 days at £79.17 per day; and £1,142.00 for failure to provide written particulars, calculated as 2 x £571 capped. The judge noted that damages were calculated on a net basis, but gross figures were used because the claimant would be liable for tax on the pay elements.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,204 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £926 |
| Other | The judgment awards £1,142.00 in respect of failure to provide written particulars of employment; it does not use the word 'succeeds' for this issue, but includes it within the successful claims in paragraph 4. | Upheld | — | £1,142 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,272
- 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.