Case 3303438/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Khushi v Meridian Marlow Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303438/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Khushi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The decision states that the success covered both unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. The respondent was ordered to pay £500 gross, subject to deduction of income tax and national insurance contributions before payment to the claimant.
The respondent's contract claim, brought pursuant to the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, was held not well founded and was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. The amount ordered was £500 gross. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's contract claim, brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.