Case 3302188/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Kasapis v Baaj Capital LLP and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302188/2025
- Decision date
- 29 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M Kasapis
Key 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 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim against the first respondent (Baaj Capital LLP) struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success: tribunal found the claimant was not employed by Baaj Capital LLP at any material time. Application to add Mr Jaswinder Singh as a respondent was refused. Claimant ordered to pay first respondent costs of £3,000. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay against second respondent (Reem Clothing Ltd, in voluntary liquidation); net sum of £9,238.98 ordered, with credit to be given for £1,057.69 already paid by RPS. | Upheld | — | £9,239 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions in relation to pension contributions ordered against second respondent (Reem Clothing Ltd, in voluntary liquidation). | Upheld | — | £129 |
Legal tests applied
2 references- TUPE
- piercing the corporate veil
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.