Case 4102139/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rebbeca Wishart v Atik Raj — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102139/2022
- Decision date
- 9 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rebbeca Wishart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Rebbeca Wishart worked as a laser and skin specialist at Skin HQ in Dock Street, Dundee from about 27 October 2021 to 18 February 2022. The tribunal accepted her evidence as truthful and found, on the balance of probabilities, that Atik Raj was her employer. Although there was reference to a wider franchise or agency arrangement involving Haroon Danis, the claimant had no contact with him and the claims against the second respondent were dismissed.
At the hearing the claimant accepted that she did not have two years' service, so her unfair dismissal claim and her claim for a redundancy payment failed. The tribunal recorded that she was not given any reason when her P45 arrived by post on 18 February 2022, but the short service point meant those claims could not succeed.
The tribunal found that January 2022 pay of about £980 net was never paid, that she also went unpaid for 1 to 18 February 2022 in the sum of £630, and that £100 had been deducted from her wages for pension contributions that were not paid over. It therefore declared an unlawful deduction of wages of £1,710 and awarded £1,730 for that claim, including a £20 late payment fee under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also awarded £226.15 as damages for breach of contract for failure to pay notice pay, making the total payment due from Mr Raj £1,956.15.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the claimant accepted that she did not have two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed after the claimant accepted that she was not entitled to a redundancy payment on the facts and length of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award included unpaid January 2022 wages, unpaid 1 to 18 February 2022 wages, £100 pension deductions not paid over, and a £20 late payment fee under s.24(2) ERA 1996; the tribunal also declared £1,710 as unlawfully withheld wages. | Upheld | — | £1,730 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for failure to pay one week's notice pay. | Upheld | — | £226 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,956
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- balance of probabilities
- section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.