Case 4100114/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Ravi v Spudshack Matchaman Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 4100114/2026
- Decision date
- 8 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Ravi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to Miss R Ravi's claim against Spudshack Matchaman Ltd. Employment Judge E Mannion issued judgment on the available material under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £72.04, calculated as 5.9 hours at £12.21 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent to pay damages in the gross sum of £61.05, calculated as one week at £61.05 per week. The combined sums ordered are £133.09, with no interest or other remedy component recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records an unauthorised deduction from wages and orders payment of the gross sum of £72.04, calculated as 5.9 hours at £12.21 per hour. | Upheld | — | £72 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and orders damages of £61.05 gross, calculated as one week at £61.05 per week. | Upheld | — | £61 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £133
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.