Case 2304765/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Germanova v Shakeaway Worldwide Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304765/2021
- Decision date
- 4 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Z Germanova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Z Germanova’s claims were heard by Employment Judge Robinson sitting alone at London South Employment Tribunal by video on 4 February 2022. The respondent was Shakeaway Worldwide Limited. The tribunal gave its judgment orally at the hearing and later issued the written record.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made two unauthorised deductions from wages. It held that £384.62 had been unlawfully deducted and ordered the respondent to pay that net sum to the claimant. It separately found that £300 had been unlawfully deducted and ordered payment of that net sum as well.
No discrimination, dismissal, redundancy, or other claim is recorded in the judgment. The written decision does not set out further reasons beyond the oral judgment, and it does not record any interest award or other remedy beyond the two wage sums. The total amount ordered was £684.62.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the net sum of £384.62 and ordered that sum to be paid to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the net sum of £300 and ordered that sum to be paid to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £685
- 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.