Case 1811282/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Shaheen v Midas Manors Limited and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 1811282/2024
- Decision date
- 29 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms F Shaheen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied under section 132(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 after the first respondent failed to comply with the interim relief Order sent to the parties on 29 November 2024. The Order required payment of £3,245.60 per month on the 20th of each month by way of continuation of the claimant’s contractual terms, including preservation of seniority rights.
The tribunal recorded that no application had been made to revoke the Order. As at 17 July 2025, the first respondent had not paid the sums due for February to June 2025, a period of five months. The substantive unfair dismissal claim, in respect of which interim relief had been granted, was listed for March 2026.
In light of the unpaid sums and the delay until the final hearing, Employment Judge JM Wade gave judgment on the claimant’s application and ordered the first respondent to pay £16,228 consequent on the failure to comply with the Order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application under s.132(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 for payment due to failure to comply with the interim relief Order in the unfair dismissal proceedings; relief was granted against the first respondent only. | Upheld | — | £16,228 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,228
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.132(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.