Case 3200533/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Adeji v Miss Ca$h Sportswear London — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200533/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smyth Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Adeji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs G Adeji's complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed. The tribunal held that she had less than two years' continuous employment, so the ordinary unfair dismissal protection did not apply, and the exceptions in section 108(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not engaged on the facts found by the tribunal.
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's pay in respect of wages due on Friday 2 December 2022 and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum deducted, being £49.68.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and the exceptions in section 108(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from pay in respect of wages due on Friday 2 December 2022 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £50 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £50
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
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.