Case 3302321/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss X Shahini v Inglemoss Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302321/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss X Shahini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the tribunal determined the claims without a hearing on the merits. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,490.00 gross.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £562.50. A separate breach of contract claim relating to unpaid expenses was also upheld, with the respondent ordered to pay £335.62.
The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Quill, dated 8 March 2024 and sent to the parties on 21 March 2024. No reasons beyond the orders themselves were recorded in the document.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; ordered to pay £3490.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,490 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £562.50 ordered (rounded to nearest GBP). | Upheld | — | £563 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract for failure to pay expenses; £335.62 ordered (rounded to nearest GBP). | Upheld | — | £336 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,388
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
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.