Case 2304842/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Meetun v Basketdrop Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304842/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Meetun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 15 September 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Wright decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, had dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and had failed to pay holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,170 net for wages, £1,085 for notice damages, and £390.60 for holiday entitlement, making £3,645.60 in total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment recorded that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay £2,170 net. | Upheld | — | £2,170 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,085 damages. | Upheld | — | £1,085 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment found the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and awarded £390.60. | Upheld | — | £391 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,646
- 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.