Case 2204575/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Georgia Chakli v Beauty Consultants Bureau (UK) LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204575/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Georgia Chakli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 grounds of resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade considered the ET1 on the papers and, under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, determined that a decision could properly be made without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay monies owed to the claimant. It ordered payment of £5,460.00, made up of a statutory redundancy payment of £1,575.00, notice pay of £1,575.00, and arrears of pay for 1 to 30 March 2020 of £2,310.00. The judgment also recorded that the respondent should account to HMRC for tax and national insurance due on the arrears of pay, and the listed September/October 2021 hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment ordered by the tribunal. | Upheld | — | £1,575 |
| Other | Notice pay ordered; the judgment does not state the underlying legal label. | Upheld | — | £1,575 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay for 1 to 30 March 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,310 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,460
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.