Case 1806769/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms F Ismail v EEV management Ltd and 1 other — 2023

Case reference: 1806769/2022
Decision date: 10 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cox Date

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms F Ismail

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claim against the First Respondent was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant.

The Second Respondent did not respond to the strike out warning issued on 5 April 2023, and its response was struck out on the ground that it was not being actively pursued. The Employment Judge decided that the claim against the Second Respondent could properly be determined under Rule 21.

The Employment Judge found that the Second Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and ordered it to pay the Claimant £2,312.60. The hearing listed for 7 June 2023 was cancelled.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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	The claim against the First Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim against the Second Respondent was determined under Rule 21 after its response was struck out for not being actively pursued.	Upheld	—	£2,313

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,313; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.