Case 2204568/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Rotana Unisex Salon Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204568/2019
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal therefore considered the ET1 and decided, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing. The listed hearing on 28 February 2020 did not take place because judgment had already been given.
The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages and notice pay. It ordered payment of £438.48 in wages and £125.28 in notice pay, making a total award of £563.76. The judgment also directed the respondent to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due on the total sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal stated that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages and ordered payment of £438.48 for wages. | Upheld | — | £438 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal stated that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay and ordered payment of £125.28 as notice pay. | Upheld | — | £125 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £564
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.