Case 2300890/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wallbridge v Khusboo Catering UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300890/2022
- Decision date
- 4 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wallbridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 8 March 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Wright Date determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 11 November 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,204 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to reimburse the claimant for expenses incurred in purchasing stock for the respondent and ordered payment of £146.24.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,448.45. The total payable under the judgment was £3,798.69.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and was ordered to pay £2,204 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,204 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent was found to have failed to reimburse expenses incurred by the claimant in purchasing stock for the respondent. | Upheld | — | £146 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent was found to have failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,448 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,799
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.