Case 2405961/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Malusi Dangi v Express Chef North Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405961/2022
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Malusi Dangi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent filed its response out of time and applied for an extension of time. On the day of the hearing it emailed the tribunal saying it was happy to check its records, accepted that issues arise when employees leave without notice and do not complete the required documents, and said it was happy to pay the amount the claimant had requested if he provided his full address.
The tribunal dismissed the respondent's application to extend time for filing the response. It then entered a Rule 21 judgment and held that the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,155.30. A separate interest notice stated that interest would be payable if the award remained unpaid more than 14 days after the written record was sent to the parties, with the relevant decision day given as 21 November 2022 and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the respondent's application to extend time for presenting a response and then made a Rule 21 judgment. It found the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £2,155.30. | Upheld | — | £2,155 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,155
- across all upheld claims
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.