Case 3302832/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Alom v Cactus Rainbow Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302832/2024
- Decision date
- 23 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Alom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the South East Employment Tribunals on 7 June 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment also records that the respondent changed its name from Hospitality (Chobham) Limited to Cactus Rainbow Limited on 1 July 2024, and the claim was amended accordingly.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,803.10 gross. No separate breakdown of remedy components was given in the judgment beyond that sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The respondent's name was changed in the judgment from Hospitality (Chobham) Limited to Cactus Rainbow Limited following a company name change on 1 July 2024. | Upheld | — | £1,803 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,803
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.