Case 2204810/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms M A Nikolaou v Bhatia Brothers FZE — 2022

Case reference: 2204810/2020
Decision date: 11 May 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Norris
Venue: Central London

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms M A Nikolaou

Respondent

Bhatia Brothers FZE

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that Ms M A Nikolaou was an employee of Bhatia Brothers FZE and that she was unfairly dismissed for asserting a statutory right, contrary to section 104(4)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also recorded that she was dismissed in breach of contract. The respondent did not appear and was not represented; Employment Judge Norris sat alone via CVP and gave reasons orally, so no written reasons were provided.

Remedy was ordered in the total sum of £14,318.26. The judgment breaks that sum down as £5,879.24 for unfair dismissal, £2,500.00 for age-related harassment, £1,462.81 for breach of contract/notice pay, £1,110.96 for accrued but untaken holiday, £3,151.00 for wages between 16 February and 24 April 2020, and £214.25 interest on the age-related harassment award.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	—	£5,879
Harassment	Recorded in the remedy section as 'age-related harassment'; the judgment does not provide separate written reasons.	Upheld	Age	£2,500
Breach of contract	Recorded in the remedy section as 'breach of contract/notice pay'.	Upheld	—	£1,463
Holiday pay	Recorded in the remedy section as 'accrued but untaken holiday'.	Upheld	—	£1,111
Unlawful deduction from wages	Recorded in the remedy section as 'wages between 16 February and 24 April 2020'.	Upheld	—	£3,151

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £14,318; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.