Case 3300317/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S McGrath v Katta + Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300317/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S McGrath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a Rule 21 judgment issued under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, decided by Employment Judge Anstis on 2 July 2024 without a contested hearing. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £903.42 (net).
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £3,260.54 (net), with an additional £4,168.86 in respect of other breaches of contract. The respondent was also found to have failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, with £1,355.13 (net) awarded.
The judgment contains no narrative reasoning beyond the awards themselves, consistent with the Rule 21 template. No legal tests are explicitly cited and no lay members are listed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; net figure awarded. | Upheld | — | £903 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. £3,260.54 (net) awarded as damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; further £4,168.86 awarded in respect of other breaches of contract. | Upheld | — | £7,429 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; net figure awarded. Categorised under holiday_pay (Working Time Regulations-related). | Upheld | — | £1,355 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,688
- 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.