Case 4104245/2022 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104245/2022 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on October 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Lynzi Miller v Beyond Medispa — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104245/2022
- Decision date
- 25 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104245/2022 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on October 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Lynzi Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an Aesthetician/Beauty Therapist from 28 March 2022 until 4 April 2022. She had been required to attend training before starting work, including medical device training provided by Novus Medical Ltd at a cost to the respondent of £950 plus VAT, and her final payment on termination should have been £788.28. The respondent reduced that payment to nil to recover the training cost.
The tribunal held that this was an unlawful deduction from wages within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No contract of employment was produced, so there was no evidence of a contractual term authorising the deduction, and there was also no evidence that the claimant had signified written agreement or consent. The tribunal found that an email stating the claimant would be "asked to pay all training back" did not amount to written consent or a clear contractual right to deduct the sum from wages at source. The respondent was therefore ordered to pay the claimant £788.28.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent deducted the claimant's final pay of £788.28 to recover medical device training costs, but had no contractual right or written consent to do so. | Upheld | — | £788 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £788
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 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.