Case 3302588/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Gill v Aesthetic Clinic Harrow Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302588/2025
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Gill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent presented a response and accepted that the claimant's claim for unpaid wages totalling £1,173 (covering work done in December 2024 and January 2025 plus £240 withheld at the start of employment) was well-founded. The respondent claimed an inability to pay due to the alleged theft of essential equipment after the claimant's employment ended and asked for time to pay.
The Tribunal noted that it had no power to withhold judgment of a well-founded claim by reason of the respondent's inability to meet it, nor to grant time to pay in stages. The claim being admitted, judgment was issued ordering the respondent to pay the claimant £1,173 gross, less PAYE and national insurance deductions required to be paid to HMRC under the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003.
The respondent's name was also corrected to Aesthetic Clinic Harrow Limited following its email of 19 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent admitted unpaid wages (£1,173 gross) for work in December 2024 and January 2025 and £240 withheld from the start of employment. Award is gross of PAYE/NIC. | Upheld | — | £1,173 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,173
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003/2682
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.