Case 1802247/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Godfather Beverley Ltd and H&N 2019 Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1802247/2019
- Decision date
- 16 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S Mohsen, brought complaints of non-payment of holiday pay against two respondents. At the hearing in Leeds on 8 October 2019, the case was heard by Employment Judge T R Smith. No lay members are listed in the judgment.
The complaint against the Second Respondent, H&N 2019 Ltd, was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment records no substantive finding on that complaint beyond the withdrawal.
The complaint against the First Respondent, Godfather Beverley Ltd, was found well founded. The tribunal ordered the First Respondent to pay the claimant £48.30 forthwith. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were issued.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The complaint of non-payment of holiday pay against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint of non-payment of holiday pay against the First Respondent was well founded. The tribunal ordered the First Respondent to pay £48.30 forthwith. | Upheld | — | £48 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £48
- 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.