Case 3323509/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Miss L M Cook v The Eye Academy (Richmond) Limited — 2022

Case reference: 3323509/2021
Decision date: 29 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge McCluskey REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss L M Cook

Respondent

The Eye Academy (Richmond) Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal at Watford, heard by Employment Judge McCluskey on 31 October 2022, dealt with the claimant's wage and contract claims arising from items said to be due from the respondent, The Eye Academy (Richmond) Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant succeeded only in her unlawful deduction from wages claim for the value of the sunglasses, and the respondent was ordered to pay £300 net.

The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim in relation to General Optical Council fees did not succeed. The claimant's breach of contract claim in respect of parking expenses also did not succeed and was dismissed.

Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out further factual findings or any separate remedy analysis beyond the £300 net award for the sunglasses.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim succeeded in respect of the value of the sunglasses; respondent ordered to pay £300 net.	Upheld	—	£300
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim in respect of General Optical Council fees did not succeed.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Claim in respect of parking expenses did not succeed.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £300; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.