Case 8002102/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Kaur v Caribbean Street Food Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002102/2025
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Kaur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge L Doherty issued a Rule 22 judgment on the available material because no response had been presented to the claim. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,225 gross, described as 14 days at £87.50.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered £386.71 net, described as one week at £386.71. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £612.50 gross, described as 7 days at £87.50.
The total of the awards made in the judgment is £2,224.21. No discrimination issues, panel members, or named legal tests are recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,225 gross, stated as 14 days at £87.50. | Upheld | — | £1,225 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered £386.71 net, stated as one week at £386.71. | Upheld | — | £387 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £612.50 gross, stated as 7 days at £87.50. | Upheld | — | £613 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,224
- across all upheld claims
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.