Case 3200739/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Singh v Wetheintrepid Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200739/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 14 April 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 7 September 2023 was cancelled.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for insufficient service following the Tribunal's letter of 10 May 2023. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on dismissal merits, because the claim did not proceed beyond that procedural point.
On the wages claim, the Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,965.86 gross. No separate breakdown of remedy was provided beyond that figure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out for insufficient service following the Employment Tribunal letter of 10 May 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The award was stated to be gross. | Upheld | — | £3,966 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,966
- 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.