Case 6005410/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Zara Rawlinson v Ikigai Tech 2 Limited (formerly Mindweaver Limited) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005410/2024
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sekhon Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Zara Rawlinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response to the claim and did not attend the hearing on 13 January 2025. Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and considered the documentation she provided. The Tribunal also amended the name of the respondent on the claim form from Mindweaver Limited to Ikigai Tech 2 Limited.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction of wages in respect of the claimant's claims for unpaid wages and accrued but untaken holiday pay, and those claims succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £7,290.12 net, comprising unpaid wages for January, February and March 2024 together with unpaid holiday pay. The figures are net, with the respondent remaining liable for the appropriate tax and national insurance contributions on the gross sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages for January 2024 (£2,409.67 net), February 2024 (£2,619.27 net) and March 2024 (£1,602.34 net). Figures are net of tax and NI. | Upheld | — | £6,631 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay of £658.84 net awarded as part of the unlawful deduction of wages claim. | Upheld | — | £659 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,290
- 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.