Case 2402646/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Mousmie v All Square Limited t/a Cleanology — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402646/2024
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Mousmie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £34.65. The respondent said the matter had been resolved through ACAS discussions and that the claimant had confirmed she was paid the outstanding wages on 3 May 2024.
The claimant later applied to amend her claim to add a race discrimination complaint. She did not attend the preliminary hearing and had not communicated non-availability or sought a postponement, so the tribunal refused the amendment application because she appeared no longer to be pursuing it.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the wages claim had been paid and accepted shortly after the claim form was presented. It held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the matter had already been resolved, that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, and that the claimant had failed to pursue her case, so the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted that the wages claim for £34.65 had already been paid and accepted by the claimant shortly after the claim form was presented, so the claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and because the claimant had failed to pursue it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's application to amend her claim to include a complaint of race discrimination was refused because she did not attend the preliminary hearing to pursue the application and the respondent resisted it. | Other | Race | — |
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.