Case 2200392/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Bheemanandham v The Rochester Cafe Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200392/2024
- Decision date
- 9 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Bheemanandham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Davidson on 2 July 2024. The claimant did not attend. The respondent, The Rochester Cafe, was represented by Ms L Mensah, Counsel. The tribunal allowed the respondent's application to file its response out of time.
The tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 11 October to 19 October 2023. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £300.50, being the gross sum deducted, and the claimant was recorded as responsible for any tax or National Insurance due.
The complaints of age discrimination and sex discrimination were struck out. The tribunal said they were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a tribunal order to provide particulars of the claims. In the alternative, the tribunal said they were struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period 11 October to 19 October 2023 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £301 |
| Age discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order to provide particulars of the claim; alternatively struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order to provide particulars of the claim; alternatively struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £301
- 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.