Case 1301401/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Winnie Ndlovu First v The Penderels Trust Ltd Second Respondent: Ms Luulu Rashid — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301401/2023
- Decision date
- 21 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Battisby
- Venue
- Birmingham remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Winnie Ndlovu First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Winnie Ndlovu brought an unlawful deduction from wages claim against The Penderels Trust Ltd and Ms Luulu Rashid. The hearing was held remotely by video at Birmingham on 21 June 2023 before Employment Judge Battisby sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person, the first respondent was represented by counsel, and the second respondent did not attend.
The tribunal dismissed the claim against the first respondent. It found the claim well-founded against the second respondent and ordered Ms Luulu Rashid to pay the claimant £291.62 gross for outstanding wages. The written record states that this figure was calculated as 76.75 hours at £12 per hour, less £629.38 already paid.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the First Respondent, The Penderels Trust Ltd, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the Second Respondent, Ms Luulu Rashid, was well-founded and she was ordered to pay £291.62 gross for outstanding wages due, calculated as 76.75 hours at £12 per hour less £629.38 already paid. | Upheld | — | £292 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £292
- across all upheld claims
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.