Case 2201010/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Doocey Miss L Driscoll Mr J Carter v Madbird & Co. Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201010/2021
- Decision date
- 10 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Doocey Miss L Driscoll Mr J Carter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with three linked claims by Mr C Doocey, Miss L Driscoll and Mr J Carter against Madbird & Co Ltd. The respondent had not presented a response. The claims were first served in June 2021, but by email of 27 July 2021 Mr Ali Ayyad, a director of the respondent, said he had not received them, so the earlier hearing was postponed and the claims were re-served at the email address he provided.
No response was then presented within the 28-day deadline or by the date of judgment. Employment Judge Baty therefore determined the claims under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 on the material available. The tribunal upheld the complaints of unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal made separate gross awards to each claimant: £7,255.04 to Chris Doocey for 104 days worked at the applicable rate under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, £7,255.04 to Jordan Carter for 104 days worked, and £4,341.40 to Lucy Driscoll for 81 days worked. The total awards came to £18,851.48 gross. The hearing listed for 10 September 2021 was vacated and did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. No response was presented. The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaints for all three claimants and made separate gross awards of £7,255.04 to Chris Doocey, £7,255.04 to Jordan Carter, and £4,341.40 to Lucy Driscoll, all in respect of days worked at the applicable rate under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,851
- 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.