Case 3302590/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Irfan v Aesthetic Clinic Harrow Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302590/2025
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Irfan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Irfan brought a claim against Aesthetic Clinic Harrow Limited for unpaid wages. The respondent accepted in its response that the claimant’s claim for unpaid wages totalling £553 was well-founded, although it said it could not pay immediately because of the alleged theft of essential equipment after the claimant’s employment ended and asked for time to pay.
The tribunal corrected the respondent’s name to Aesthetic Clinic Harrow Limited after the respondent confirmed that was its correct name. It held that it had no power to withhold judgment on a well-founded claim because the respondent could not pay, and no power to allow payment in stages.
Because the claim was admitted, the tribunal entered judgment that the respondent had unlawfully deducted £553 gross from the claimant’s wages and must pay that sum, less the deductions for income tax and national insurance required by PAYE regulations.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent admitted the claimant’s claim for unpaid wages totalling £553. The judgment orders payment of that gross sum, subject to the usual PAYE deductions to HMRC. | Upheld | — | £553 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £553
- 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.