Case 2300260/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G. Zedda v Shapers (Sutton) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300260/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G. Zedda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent failed to respond to the claim form. The hearing took place at London South (by CVP) on 7 May 2024 before Employment Judge Yardley, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent not attending. Judgment was entered for the claimant.
The tribunal found that the claimant had suffered an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of the period from 26 August 2022 to 15 September 2022, and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £552.90. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and ordered the respondent to pay the net sum of £737.20.
The total sum payable by the respondent to the claimant is £1,290.10. The claimant must account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of sums received from the respondent. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 26 August 2022 to 15 September 2022; gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £553 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice pay; net sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £737 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,290
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.