Case 2402139/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Shafiq v Macarina & Renhe Beauty Cosmetics Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402139/2021
- Decision date
- 1 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Shafiq
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response within the prescribed time limit. Employment Judge Holmes therefore determined the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that Miss I Shafiq had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent, Macarina & Renhe Beauty Cosmetics Limited, to pay damages in the net sum of £1,525.88. The judgment records the calculation as £1,800.00 less £160.38 and £113.74 for benefits claimed.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of the net sum of £1,282.40 for that head of claim.
The judgment does not set out any separate award for interest within the body of the decision, although a standard interest notice was attached. The bottom-line sums awarded by the tribunal are £1,525.88 and £1,282.40, giving a total monetary award of £2,808.28.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages in the net sum of £1,525.88, calculated from £1,800.00 less £160.38 and £113.74 for benefits claimed. | Upheld | — | £1,526 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,282.40. | Upheld | — | £1,282 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,808
- 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.