Case 2207390/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. R. Kayastha v Le Beauty Boudoir Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2207390/2020
- Decision date
- 30 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. R. Kayastha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Wade therefore determined the case on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay wages owed, had failed to make a redundancy payment, and had failed to allow annual leave or pay in lieu. It considered the claimant's schedule of loss, but said it did not have power to award HMRC furlough payments or compensation, so those items were omitted from the award.
The respondent was ordered to pay £5,178.40 and to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on that sum. The judgment also told the claimant that if she believed £9,250.40 was payable, she could write to the tribunal within seven days and explain why she sought the full amount.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the respondent failed to pay wages owed to the claimant. The judgment does not allocate a separate amount to this head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal said the respondent failed to make a redundancy payment. The judgment does not allocate a separate amount to this head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said the respondent failed to allow the claimant to take annual leave or to pay her in lieu. The judgment does not allocate a separate amount to this head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,178
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.