Claimant v Baaj Capital LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant did not have two years continuous service and was therefore ineligible for a redundancy payment. The claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success against the first respondent, which was not her employer at any material time.
The tribunal found that the second respondent, Reem Clothing Ltd (in voluntary liquidation), had failed to pay the claimant's notice pay in breach of contract. The tribunal ordered payment of the net sum of £9,238.98 with credit for £1,057.69 already paid by RPS.
The tribunal found that the second respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's pay in relation to pension contributions and ordered payment of £128.70.
Holiday pay was claimed but the judgment does not detail the outcome of this specific claim or provide reasons for its determination.
Arrears of pay were claimed but the judgment does not detail the outcome of this specific claim beyond the pension deductions issue.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Chi Chi Collection Ltd from 16 March 2023 and was TUPE transferred to Reem Clothing Ltd on 8 September 2023 when the administrator of Chi Chi Collection Ltd entered into an asset sale. The claimant was made redundant on 14 August 2024. She brought claims naming Baaj Capital LLP as her employer, arguing that because Mr Jaswinder Singh was a director of both Baaj Capital LLP and Reem Clothing Ltd, and controlled day-to-day operations, Baaj Capital acted as her employer 'in all but name'. The claimant had previously been involved in a multiple claim which had already determined that Reem Clothing Ltd was the employer during the relevant period.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim against Baaj Capital LLP as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that the claimant was at no relevant time an employee of Baaj Capital LLP or Mr Jaswinder Singh. The tribunal found the claimant succeeded in her claims for notice pay and pension deductions against the second respondent, Reem Clothing Ltd (in liquidation), and awarded a total of £9,367.68. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay costs of £3,000 to the first respondent for unreasonably continuing the claim after 16 June 2025 when it should have been clear the case was hopeless.
Practical note
A litigant in person who unreasonably persists with a hopeless claim against the wrong legal entity after clear judicial guidance and multiple cost warnings can face a substantial costs order, even taking into account limited means and strongly held beliefs about corporate structures.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 8.9 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 3302188/2025
- Decision date
- 29 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Baaj Capital LLP
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Salary band
- £50,000–£60,000
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No