Case 2300270/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Mata v Niha Cuts and Beauty Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300270/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Mata
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 16 May 2022 did not proceed to determine the outstanding liability issues. Employment Judge Self accepted that the respondent director, Mr Tayyab, had taken steps as a litigant in person to deal with the hearing from abroad, and considered it unfair to proceed in his absence. The matter was therefore postponed and relisted for 15 July 2022, with directions for the respondent to resend his bundle and witness statement by 31 May 2022 and for an Italian interpreter to be available for the next hearing.
On the merits addressed in this judgment, the tribunal recorded that at the previous hearing the respondent had accepted owing unpaid holiday pay but had not yet paid it. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant, by agreement, in the net sum of £731.10 in respect of unpaid holiday pay. The reasons state that the hearing had been listed to consider the remaining claims of breach of contract / unlawful deduction of wages, but those issues were left for the relisted hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal entered judgment, by agreement, for the net sum of £731.10 in respect of unpaid holiday pay. The reasons say the remaining issues were breach of contract / unlawful deduction of wages, but this was the only monetary award made at this hearing. | Upheld | — | £731 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £731
- 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.