Case 3200103/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Momina Farooq Mahek Mirza Neha Saba Rafiq Ayesha Katherine Fox Tiffany Acheampong v Umair Mohammed Shafiq, trading as Cupp Bubble Tea — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200103/2024
- Decision date
- 9 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Momina Farooq Mahek Mirza Neha Saba Rafiq Ayesha Katherine Fox Tiffany Acheampong
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard evidence from Momina Farooq and Mahek Mirza, both of whom attended in person. It accepted their evidence as truthful and accepted their spreadsheets of hours worked, hourly rates and payments received as accurate. The tribunal found that the respondent ran four cafés selling bubble tea, that the two claimants worked at one or more of those cafés, that they did not receive payslips, and that they were paid intermittently and sporadically. Their requests for payment of wages earned were said to have been fobbed off by the respondent and branch managers, and the tribunal held that the respondent made unlawful deductions from their wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim by Momina Farooq. The tribunal found the respondent made unlawful deductions from her wages and ordered payment of £3,439.00. | Upheld | — | £3,439 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim by Mahek Mirza. The tribunal found the respondent made unlawful deductions from her wages and ordered payment of £3,043.56. | Upheld | — | £3,044 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,483
- 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.