Case 2305099/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Taran Birdi v Merchmaker Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305099/2019
- Decision date
- 15 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Taran Birdi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 12 November 2019. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that Merchmaker Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Miss Taran Birdi’s wages. It awarded £3,750 gross for unpaid wages for August 2019 and two weeks in September 2019.
The tribunal also found that Miss Birdi was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,500 gross damages. A further finding was made that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement, with £2,250 gross awarded for that head of claim. The total award was £8,500.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and awarded £3,750 gross for unpaid wages for August and two weeks in September 2019. | Upheld | — | £3,750 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,500 gross damages. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £2,250 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.