Case 2411761/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Pourabbas v Ms Roya Farsad and Ms Roksana Aryamanesh t/a Roya Beauty Salon — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411761/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Representatives
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Pourabbas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unpaid wages against Roya Beauty Salon. The respondents did not present a valid response and did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the business was a partnership between Ms Roya Farsad and Ms Roksana Aryamanesh trading as Roya Beauty Salon, and substituted their names as respondents under Rule 34 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013, being satisfied they had proper notice and an opportunity to participate.
The claim succeeded by default under rule 21. The Tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she worked 171.4 hours between July and September 2023 and was paid £983.25, when at the National Minimum Wage rate of £10.42 per hour she should have received £1,785.99. The respondents had therefore made unauthorised deductions from her wages.
As the business was a partnership, both individuals were held jointly and severally liable. They were ordered to pay the claimant the shortfall of £802.74 immediately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded by default under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondents failed to present a valid response. The award represents the shortfall between wages paid (£983.25) and National Minimum Wage entitlement (£1,785.99) for 171.4 hours at £10.42/hour. | Upheld | — | £803 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £803
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure Regulations 2013
- Rule 34 of the ET 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.