Case 2212717/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Nagy v Dimple's Beauty London Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2212717/2023
- Decision date
- 27 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Havard Representation
- Venue
- London Central via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Z Nagy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central via CVP on 27 September 2023 before Employment Judge Havard, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr L Baker of Avensure Limited. The judgment was entered by consent, so the tribunal did not determine contested liability issues in written reasons.
The tribunal recorded an agreed gross sum of £1,200 in respect of notice pay. It also recorded an agreed gross amount of £171.25 for unpaid wages, comprising £12.50 for overtime, £8.75 for commission, and £150 for 6 hours worked.
The total gross sum agreed and ordered to be paid by the respondent was £1,371.25, payable within 14 days. The written judgment states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | By consent, the Tribunal recorded an agreed gross sum of £1,200 in respect of notice pay. | Settled | — | £1,200 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the Tribunal recorded an agreed gross amount of £171.25 for unpaid wages, made up of £12.50 overtime, £8.75 commission, and £150 for 6 hours worked. | Settled | — | £171 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,371
- 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.