Case 6001104/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Massiah v Safehaven Parrot Refuge (Charity number 1075873) — 2023
- Case reference
- 6001104/2023
- Decision date
- 18 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Massiah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Massiah presented her claim in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 23 June 2023. The respondent, Safehaven Parrot Refuge (Charity number 1075873), did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and determined the claim on the papers.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and/or, in breach of contract, failed to repay her expenses. The judgment does not separate the award between those two heads of claim. It orders the respondent to pay £743.32 gross.
The judgment records a total payment of £743.32 and cancels the hearing listed for 20 December 2023. No other liability findings or remedy components are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and/or, in breach of contract, failed to repay her expenses. It does not split the £743.32 between those heads. | Upheld | — | £743 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £743
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.