Case 3334948/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Aprova v Royce Mayfair Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3334948/2018
- Decision date
- 15 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Aprova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs Aprova’s claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from earnings, breach of contract, and failure to provide payslips were well-founded. The judgment records those liability findings only and does not set out any quantified remedy in the same decision.
Instead, the tribunal directed the claimant to file a Schedule of Loss, supported by a statement of truth, and a witness statement with documents supporting the matters in the schedule of loss within 28 days. It stated that, once those materials were filed, the tribunal would give further directions for a remedy judgment. No separate award figure is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described the claim as 'unauthorised deductions from earnings' and found it well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment separately found the claim for failure to provide payslips to be well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.