Case 3201374/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Bekezela Mugova v Bravo Healthcare Professionals Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201374/2019
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Bekezela Mugova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Bekezela Mugova said she worked for Bravo Healthcare Professionals Limited as a care assistant in a nursing home under a contract providing for payment at £10 per hour. She stated that she worked one 13-hour shift, identified in the papers as Monday 28 January 2019, and was not paid for that work.
The Claimant did not attend in person but asked for the case to be decided on the papers, including her claim form and a timesheet. The Respondent did not enter an appearance and did not attend the hearing.
Having reviewed the claim form and timesheet, the Employment Judge accepted that the Claimant had worked 13 hours for which she had not been paid. The tribunal therefore ordered the Respondent to pay £130 gross, calculated at £10 per hour for the unpaid shift.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence on the papers that she had worked a 13-hour shift on 28 January 2019 at £10 per hour and had not been paid for that shift. The Respondent did not attend or enter an appearance. | Upheld | — | £130 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £130
- 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.