Case 2207664/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr J Canuelo (2) Ms D Chowgule (3) Ms A Malgorn v Mixity Design Ltd (in voluntary administration) 7664 — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207664/2021
- Decision date
- 22 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr J Canuelo (2) Ms D Chowgule (3) Ms A Malgorn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response to the claims had been presented, despite service at the respondent’s address and a follow-up email sent on 3 March 2022. The tribunal recorded that the respondent replied on 4 March 2022 only to direct the tribunal to RG Insolvency Ltd, with no indication that the claims were defended. The judgment also stated that the respondent was in voluntary liquidation only, so no moratorium applied to these proceedings.
Under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, the claimants’ complaints of unlawful deduction from wages all succeeded. The hearing listed for 8 March 2022 was vacated and did not take place.
The tribunal made gross awards for unpaid wages for June and July 2021 as follows: £3,833.34 to Mr Canuelo, £4,794.74 to Ms Chowgule, and £4,318.38 to Ms Malgorn. The total amount awarded was £12,946.46.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment; award for unpaid wages for June and July 2021. | Upheld | — | £3,833 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment; award for unpaid wages for June and July 2021. | Upheld | — | £4,795 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment; award for unpaid wages for June and July 2021. | Upheld | — | £4,318 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,946
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.