Case 2302043/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Thind v Ruthless Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302043/2022
- Decision date
- 7 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren Representation
- Venue
- London South Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Thind
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Thind brought claims against Ruthless Limited for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and for failure to pay nine days' holiday pay. The matter was heard at London South Hearing Centre by CVP on 18 November 2022 before Employment Judge McLaren. The tribunal found both claims succeeded.
The written record states that the claimant was awarded unpaid wages of £2,451.66, described as a net figure to be paid on a gross basis with appropriate PAYE accounting, plus an additional £200 less appropriate PAYE. It also awarded a sum equivalent to nine days' pay for outstanding holiday, assessed at £831 gross less appropriate PAYE. The total award recorded from the listed sums is £3,482.66.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded unpaid wages of £2,451.66 plus an additional £200, with PAYE accounting to be applied. The short written record does not explain the basis of the additional £200 separately. | Upheld | — | £2,652 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as a sum equivalent to 9 days' outstanding holiday pay, stated as £831 gross less appropriate PAYE. | Upheld | — | £831 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,483
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.