Case 2217719/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mandeep Kaur v Ingredients, Supplements and Methods Ltd and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217719/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns JUDGMENT
Parties
5 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with three linked case numbers under rule 21 after the respondents failed to file any ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge E Burns decided the claims on the ET1s without a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal found that the first respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages to Mr Mandeep Kaur.
The tribunal ordered Ingredients, Supplements and Methods Limited to pay £7,036 gross, subject to deductions for income tax or national insurance and payment of those deductions to HMRC. The claims against the second, third and fourth respondents were dismissed because claims for unpaid monies could only be brought against the claimant's employer, which the tribunal identified as the first respondent. No further hearings were listed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 on the ET1s without a hearing after no ET3s were filed. The first respondent was found to have unlawfully failed to pay wages. Claims against respondents 2, 3 and 4 were dismissed because unpaid monies claims could only be brought against the claimant's employer, identified as the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £7,036 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,036
- 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.