Case 1307573/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Sajinder Nagra v Essence of Beauty UPON APPLICATION made by letter dated 28 March 2022 to reconsider the — 2022

Case reference: 1307573/2020
Decision date: 10 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hena Dated

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Sajinder Nagra

Respondent

Essence of Beauty UPON APPLICATION made by letter dated 28 March 2022 to reconsider the

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt with the respondent's reconsideration application without a hearing under rules 70 and 73. It refused reconsideration of paragraph 6 of the 4 February 2022 judgment because the respondent did not evidence why its calculation of the average hours worked was correct. It also refused reconsideration of paragraph 7 because the respondent did not provide anything further to displace the finding that the claimant's evidence on holidays owed was preferred.

The tribunal did allow reconsideration of paragraph 11, saying there were no grounds to make an award under section 12(4) of the Act and that section 26 of the Act prevented double recovery. It stated that the total sum payable was reduced to £7,973.45, made up of £2,306.75 gross for unlawful deductions, £4,986.70 gross for holiday pay, and £680 additional compensation for failure to be provided with written particulars.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal refused reconsideration of paragraph 6 because the respondent did not evidence why its calculation of the average hours worked was correct.	Upheld	—	£2,307
Holiday pay	The tribunal refused reconsideration of paragraph 7 because the respondent put forward nothing further to change the finding that the claimant's evidence on holidays owed was preferred.	Upheld	—	£4,987
Other	The extract is internally inconsistent on this component: paragraph 3 says reconsideration of paragraph 11 succeeds and refers to section 12(4) of the Act, but paragraph 4 still includes £680 for failure to be provided with written particulars in the reduced total.	Other	—	£680

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £7,973; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.