Case 2200736/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Anaita Jami v Sole Beauty Salons Ltd. Hearing: Final Hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200736/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. Anaita Jami
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing on 19 July 2024, heard at London Central Employment Tribunal by video/CVP before Employment Judge Tinnion, the Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by its director, Mr L. Da Silva. The tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal also found the Claimant’s claim under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well founded. The Respondent was ordered to pay £1,056.00, calculated in the judgment as 96 hours at £11 per hour. The Claimant was directed to account to HMRC for any income tax or National Insurance Contributions relating to that payment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states: 'The Claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment is dismissed on withdrawal.' | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found the claim under s.13 ERA 1996 well founded and ordered payment of £1,056.00, stated as 96 hours x £11/hour. | Upheld | — | £1,056 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,056
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.