Case 1600414/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Mehat v Mehat Six Bells Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600414/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Panel members
- Mrs M Farley, Mrs P Humphries
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Mehat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by video on 16, 17 and 18 October 2023 before Employment Judge S Moore, Mrs M Farley and Mrs P Humphries. The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the Claimant's complaints about failure to pay the National Minimum Wage, breach of contract in relation to unpaid wages and failure to pay the National Minimum Wage, and detriments contrary to section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 were well founded.
The tribunal also upheld the Claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 104A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that a remedy hearing would be listed, so this decision does not set out any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant the National Minimum Wage contrary to section 1 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 in respect of unpaid wages and failure to pay the National Minimum Wage. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the Respondent subjected the Claimant to detriments contrary to section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaints of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 104A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
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.