Case 2204573/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Olga Olshevska v Beauty Consultants Bureau (UK) LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204573/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Olga Olshevska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningREJ Wade determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because the respondent, Beauty Consultants Bureau (UK) LLP, did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal considered the ET1 and decided that a determination could properly be made without a hearing. The hearing listed for 27 September 2021 to 1 October 2021 was vacated.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant, Olga Olshevska, monies that were owed to her. It ordered payment of £15,960.00 in total, made up of a statutory redundancy payment of £6,825.00, notice pay of £6,825.00, arrears of pay for 1 to 30 March 2020 of £2,310.00, and holiday pay of £535.00.
The judgment also directed the respondent to account to HMRC for the tax and national insurance due on the award. No lay members are listed and no separate legal test is identified in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment ordered. | Upheld | — | £6,825 |
| Other | Notice pay ordered; the judgment does not state a separate legal label for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | £6,825 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay from 1 to 30 March 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,310 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay ordered as a separate item. | Upheld | — | £535 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,960
- 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.