Case 2302913/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302913/2022
- Decision date
- 17 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered claims by Ms Margaret Mensah against Lorimell Ltd t/a Urban Medi Spa. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the Claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The holiday pay claim was dismissed after the Claimant accepted that the Respondent had paid £736.04 on 28 February 2023 in respect of annual leave accrued but not taken. On that basis, the tribunal recorded that all pay due on termination in respect of holiday pay had been received.
The claim for unlawful deduction from wages also failed and was dismissed. The written record does not give further reasons for that dismissal, and no tribunal award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out for want of jurisdiction under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the Claimant had been employed for less than two years. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed after the Claimant accepted that the Respondent had paid £736.04 on 28 February 2023 in respect of annual leave accrued but not taken, so all pay due on termination for holiday pay had been received. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that the claim failed and was dismissed; no further reasoning is given. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.