Case 1310163/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Niknejad v Hotel Management Services Limited and and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1310163/2020
- Decision date
- 28 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fitzgerald Representation
- Venue
- Midland West
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms N Niknejad
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms N Niknejad's employment transferred from Hotel Management Services Limited to Hotelwala Limited in June 2020 under TUPE, so Hotelwala Limited was the correct respondent. It found that the Ladbrooke House Hotel was an economic entity that continued to operate when Hotelwala took over the lease and business, even though there was redecoration and reduced occupancy. The dismissal letter dated 6 October 2020 took effect on 8 October 2020 under the Haywood principle.
It awarded one week's notice pay of £297.50 because the claimant had at least one month's service and received no statutory notice. It also awarded £2,558.50 holiday pay. The tribunal accepted that she had taken no holiday, had not been given a copy of her contract despite requests, and had not been given sufficient information about holiday entitlement or the loss of unused leave, so the holiday year ran from 24 March 2019 and 8.6 weeks remained outstanding on termination.
The unlawful deduction of wages claim was partly successful. The alleged underpayment relating to 14 April 2020 was dismissed because it was out of time and it was reasonably practicable to bring it sooner. The later furlough-wage element succeeded: the tribunal found unpaid wages for a 39-day period and awarded £1,189.50 at a daily rate of £30.50. It made no further award for consequential financial losses because none were proved. The separate failure to provide written particulars claim succeeded, and the tribunal awarded 4 weeks' pay of £1,190 under s.38 Employment Act 2002. The tribunal allowed tax and national insurance deductions from the notice pay and holiday pay awards.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay succeeded for one week's pay after the tribunal found the dismissal took effect on 8 October 2020. | Upheld | — | £298 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 8.6 weeks of untaken holiday outstanding on termination and awarded holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,559 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The alleged 14 April 2020 underpayment was dismissed as out of time, but the later furlough-wage element succeeded. | Other | — | £1,190 |
| Other | No further award was made for financial losses consequential to the wage deduction claim because none were proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Awarded under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,190 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,236
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- TUPE relevant transfer test
- TUPE regulation 4 effect of transfer
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood [2018] UKSC 22
- s.86 ERA 1996 notice entitlement
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 13(3)
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften eV v Shimizu
- Kreuziger v Berlin
- s.13 ERA 1996 unlawful deductions
- s.23(4) ERA 1996 not reasonably practicable test
- s.24(2) ERA 1996 consequential losses
- s.38 Employment Act 2002 written particulars award
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.