Case 6034652/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Jocelyn Bester v West End Galleries Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6034652/2025
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Jocelyn Bester
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJocelyn Bester brought a claim against West End Galleries Limited (first respondent) and Alexander Proud (second respondent), presented in the London Central Employment Tribunal on 19 September 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Nash made a determination under Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found the first respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, ordering payment of £3,174.32 gross, and that the first respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, ordering payment of £1,462.50. The first respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £4,636.82 in total. The hearing listed for 20 February 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages claim upheld against the first respondent. Ordered to pay £3,174.32 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,174 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday entitlement claim upheld against the first respondent. Ordered to pay £1,462.50. | Upheld | — | £1,463 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,637
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.