Case 6009971/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Singh v AC & AA Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009971/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Singh’s claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 29 August 2024. The respondent, AC & AA Ltd, did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Sudra therefore proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and made a determination on the papers.
The tribunal upheld the claim that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered AC & AA Ltd to pay Ms Singh £87.00 gross in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also upheld the claim that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It ordered AC & AA Ltd to pay a further £87.00 in respect of that entitlement. The judgment recorded a total sum payable of £174.00 and noted that the claimant must account to HMRC for any tax due on sums received from the respondent.
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 £87.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £87 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £87.00. | Upheld | — | £87 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £174
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.