Case 2400417/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Tagawa v Krystal CSG UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400417/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Tagawa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs M Tagawa, worked for the respondent specialist cleaning company on a zero hours contract at an hourly rate of £10.42 from 7 April 2023 to 22 August 2023. She complained that she was not paid for the last month of her employment. The respondent issued a final payslip dated 13 September 2023 recording 42 hours worked, wages of £437.64 and an income tax rebate of £87.80, but no payment was made on that date and the respondent did not respond to the claimant's follow-up messages.
The claimant commenced ACAS Early Conciliation on 25 November 2023, received the certificate on 6 January 2024, and issued tribunal proceedings on 23 January 2024. The respondent did not present a response to the claim.
Determining the matter under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the information before the Judge, Employment Judge Ainscough found that the respondent had unlawfully deducted the gross sum of £525.44 from the claimant's wages in September 2023, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered the respondent to pay that sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: respondent did not present a response. Tribunal found unlawful deduction under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the claimant's final month of wages. | Upheld | — | £525 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £525
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.