Case 2304829/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M N Caranzo v Basketdrop Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304829/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M N Caranzo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under Rule 21 after the claim was issued on 15 September 2021 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Wright decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined without a response.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and awarded £1085 net. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1085 damages, and that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement, awarding £347.20.
The judgment records a total sum payable of £2560.60 and cancelled the hearing listed for 23 June 2022. The individual awards listed in the judgment do not arithmetically match the stated total, so the judgment's stated total has been used as the aggregate award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £1085 net. | Upheld | — | £1,085 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards £1085 damages. | Upheld | — | £1,085 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £347.20. | Upheld | — | £347 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,561
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
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.