Case 2301635/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Jalili v Total Beauty Solution — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301635/2023
- Decision date
- 29 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Jalili
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 12 April 2023. The Respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £5,999.70. The calculation was based on an effective date of termination of 17 October 2022, age 66, 23 complete years of service (capped at 20 years for statutory purposes), a multiplier of 1.5 for each year of service aged over 41, and a gross weekly pay of £199.99.
The Claimant did not include claims for Holiday Pay or Unpaid Wages in her ET1 and did not apply to add those claims later; the Tribunal therefore did not consider them. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £5,999.70 in total.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 determination following Respondent's failure to present a valid response on time. Redundancy payment calculated on EDT 17 October 2022, age 66, 23 years' service (capped at 20), multiplier 1.5 per year aged over 41, gross weekly pay £199.99. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,000
- 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.