Case 3309750/2022 · Employment Tribunal
M Asklou v Casasola Consultants Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309750/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Asklou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 25 July 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Maxwell Date determined the matter under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment also records that Casasola Consultants Ltd was added as respondent in substitution for Casasola Con LTD under rule 34.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,183.00 in respect of that claim. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £159.00.
The judgment does not set out any further reasoning, legal test, or separate overall remedy calculation beyond those two sums. The total amount awarded on the face of the judgment is £1,342.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal made a rule 21 judgment because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,183.00. | Upheld | — | £1,183 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £159.00. | Upheld | — | £159 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,342
- 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.