Case 2304821/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Mankai v Intercash (Croydon) Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304821/2019
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Mankai
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on the papers under rule 60, dated 15 January 2021. The Employment Judge struck out the claims of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages against the Second Respondent, Peter Stent, on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment states that, for the avoidance of doubt, those claims continued against the First Respondent, Intercash (Croydon) Limited. No merits findings were made in this decision and no remedy was assessed.
The document does not record any legal test beyond the strike-out ground itself, and it does not identify any lay members or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as against the Second Respondent only on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success; the judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim continued against the First Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out as against the Second Respondent only on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success; the judgment states that the claim continued against the First Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.