Case 3301086/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Natasha Lay v Zachary Lichman and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301086/2021
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Natasha Lay
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 18 February 2022 before Employment Judge S. Matthews, with no appearance or representations for the respondents, the tribunal recorded the respondents' correct names as Zachary Lichman and Henry Meek trading as Arabella's House. It then found that the respondents had made an unlawful deduction from Natasha Lay's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,840.
The tribunal also made an additional award of £745 pursuant to section 38 for failure to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. The written record does not set out fuller reasons or factual detail beyond those orders, and it states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The total sum ordered to be paid to the claimant was £3,585.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,840. | Upheld | — | £2,840 |
| Other | Additional sum awarded pursuant to section 38 for failure to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £745 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,585
- 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.