Case 1401188/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Nitu v BAU UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401188/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 16 March 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The respondent was ordered to pay £6,583.51 gross, and the judgment records the total payment due as £6,583.51.
The judgment also records that the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims succeed. No remedy figure is set for those claims in this judgment because the remedy to which the claimant is entitled in respect of those claims is to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing, to be listed by later notice.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £6,583.51 gross. | Upheld | — | £6,584 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim succeeds, but the remedy for the unfair dismissal claim was to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the race discrimination claim succeeds, but the remedy was to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,584
- 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.