Case 2200299/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v United Jewellers Ltd and NQ Retail London Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200299/2020
- Decision date
- 17 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard three joined claims at London Central on 16 March 2020 before Employment Judge E Burns. The respondents sought a postponement on 12 March 2020, citing a fourth claim and the majority shareholder's recovery from emergency surgery, but the request was refused because liability for the claims had already been conceded. When the respondent representative did not attend, the tribunal telephoned him, confirmed the absence was voluntary, and proceeded in his absence under Rule 47, noting the overriding objective and the need to avoid further delay.
For Ms Varnham, the first claimant, the tribunal found she had been employed by the first respondent as a Production Coordinator from 12 February 2019 until redundancy on 12 January 2020. Her gross monthly salary was £3,166. The documentary material from the respondent confirmed that she had not been paid salary from 21 October 2019 to 12 January 2020 and was owed £265.99 in holiday pay on termination. The tribunal accepted that the total due was £8,791.56 and ordered employer pension contributions for the period from 21 October 2019 to 12 January 2020 into the scheme operated for her.
For Ms Muscat, the second claimant, the tribunal found she had been employed by the first respondent as a Wholesale Director from 11 February 2019 until 29 November 2019. Her gross monthly salary was £5,416.66. The respondent's documentation accepted that she had not been paid salary from 21 October 2019 to 29 November 2019, that £128.80 in expenses was due, and that she should recover a further £24 in additional charges incurred because of non-payment. The tribunal ordered £7,193.77 and employer pension contributions for the same October 2019 to January 2020 period.
For Mr Ohanian, the third claimant, the tribunal found he had been employed by the second respondent as a Senior Sales Consultant from 29 July 2019 until redundancy on 12 January 2020. His gross monthly salary was £3,583.33. The respondent's documentation accepted that he had not been paid salary from 21 October 2019 to 12 January 2020 and that £94.26 in holiday pay was due on termination. The tribunal ordered £9,741.62 gross and employer pension contributions for the same period. The judgment records that the cash payments were subject to normal deductions where applicable.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal stated that the respondents had unlawfully failed to pay wages to the claimants and/or that the failure was a breach of contract. It ordered cash sums to Ms Varnham, Ms Muscat and Mr Ohanian, together with employer pension contributions, but did not split the monetary awards between legal bases. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment also supports an unlawful deduction from wages classification for the unpaid wages claims. Liability had been conceded, the respondents did not attend, and the tribunal awarded the same claimant-specific sums without allocating them separately between unlawful deduction and breach of contract. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,727
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- overriding objective
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.