Case 6018905/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Kadebu v Digital Ape Marketing Ltd UK — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018905/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Kadebu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 21 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, and failure to pay holiday entitlement, with each sum ordered in dollars or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment states $1,500 gross or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Breach of contract | Notice damages stated as $500 or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday entitlement stated as $250 or the sterling equivalent at the time of payment. | Upheld | — | £250 |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.