Case 3302188/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Kasapis v Baaj Capital LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302188/2025
- Decision date
- 29 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting at Watford Employment Tribunal by CVP on 29 September 2025, Employment Judge Alliott heard a public preliminary hearing in claims against Baaj Capital LLP (first respondent) and Reem Clothing Ltd in voluntary liquidation (second respondent). The judge had previously found in the consolidated multiple claim 3314528/2023 that, between 8 September 2023 and 8 April 2024, the claimants had been employed by Reem Clothing Ltd following a TUPE transfer from Chi Chi Collection Ltd. The claimant in this case had been part of that schedule.
The tribunal concluded that at no material time was the claimant employed by Baaj Capital LLP or Mr Jaswinder Singh personally. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil did not apply: Mr Singh acted as a director when giving instructions, and the legal obligations were those of Reem Clothing Ltd or possibly JDS59 Ltd. The claim against the first respondent was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and the application to join Mr Singh as a respondent was refused. The claimant's email of 11 July 2025 was held not to be an unequivocal withdrawal of her claim.
The tribunal found that the second respondent had failed to pay the claimant's notice pay in breach of contract and ordered payment of the net sum of £9,238.98, with credit for £1,057.69 paid by the RPS. It also ordered the second respondent to pay £128.70 for unauthorised deductions in relation to pension contributions. On the first respondent's costs application, the tribunal found that conduct after the case management hearing of 16 June 2025 had been unreasonable and ordered the claimant to pay £3,000 in costs (assessed from a higher application figure after taking the claimant's means into account).
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £9,239 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £129 |
Legal tests applied
2 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.