Case 2302089/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Ghezali v Hayes Street Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302089/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Ghezali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 15 February 2024. 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 respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, calculated as 18.66 days at £100 per day, and ordered payment of £1,866.66 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with wage slips for the period 26 April 2023 to 12 December 2023.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,866.66 in total, with the claimant to account to HMRC for any sums owed in respect of the payment. The hearings listed for 10-11 July 2024 and 5 September 2024 were cancelled. The figure of £18,866.66 noted by Layer 1 appears to be a transcription of an apparent typographical error in the judgment ('£1,8866.66'); paragraph 4 states the total payable is £1,866.66.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Judgment states unpaid holiday entitlement of 18.66 days x £100 per day. The PDF contains an apparent typographical error ('£1,8866.66') which is reconciled by paragraph 4 stating the total payable is £1,866.66. | Upheld | — | £1,867 |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised wage slips (written pay statement) for the period 26 April 2023 to 12 December 2023. No separate monetary award attached in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,867
- 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.