Case 3302589/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Jani v Aesthetic Clinic Harrow Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302589/2025
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Jani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unpaid wages of £1,192.24 gross against Aesthetic Clinic Harrow Limited. The respondent presented a response in which it accepted that the claim for unpaid wages was well-founded, but said it was unable to pay the sum and asked for time to pay, citing the claimed theft of essential equipment after the claimant's employment had ended.
The tribunal noted that it has no power to withhold judgment on a well-founded claim by reason of the respondent's inability to meet it, and no power to allow an employer time to meet the claim in stages. The respondent's name was also corrected from that stated in the claim form, on the basis of the respondent's email of 19 August 2025 confirming the correct name.
The claim being admitted, the tribunal issued judgment that the respondent unlawfully deducted £1,192.24 gross from the claimant's wages, to be paid less such deductions for income tax and national insurance as required by the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003/2682.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent admitted the claim in its response. Award is gross (before PAYE income tax and national insurance deductions). | Upheld | — | £1,192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,192
- 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.