Case 3311806/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Krusel v The Tipsy Vegan Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311806/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss S Krusel
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the South East Employment Tribunals on 17 October 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Quill determined the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the papers, the tribunal found that The Tipsy Vegan Ltd and Karen Mortimer had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The judgment records an award of £1,153.73 gross for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The judgment records an award of £112.00 for that head of claim.
The total amount ordered to be paid to Miss S Krusel was £1,265.73. The judgment does not record any separate award for interest or any other remedy beyond the two sums identified above.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,153.73 gross under rule 21 after no valid response was presented on time. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £112.00 under rule 21 after no valid response was presented on time. | Upheld | — | £112 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,266
- 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.