Case 6009528/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Finney v Aristos Aristodemou Heard By: Newcastle Employment Tribunal By: Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009528/2025
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Finney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages to be well founded pursuant to Rule 22 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024. The judgment did not determine remedy and listed the case for a separate remedy hearing.
The respondent's Response had been rejected and no application was made to review that rejection or extend time for filing a Response. At the preliminary hearing, the claimant decided to focus on the unlawful deduction from wages claim and withdrew the unfair dismissal, age discrimination and sex discrimination complaints, which were dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was found well founded pursuant to Rule 22; remedy was deferred to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant decided not to pursue this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant decided not to pursue this claim. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant decided not to pursue this claim. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of Schedule 1 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024
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.