Case 3202352/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Nesha v Valiance Management Limited t/a Urban Chocolatier Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202352/2023
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Nesha
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21. The tribunal recorded that Ms M Nesha worked 40 hours a week for the Respondent, Valiance Management Limited t/a Urban Chocolatier Limited, with an average gross weekly pay of £342.88. Her employment ran from 2 February 2023 to 27 June 2023.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's salary for June 2023. It ordered the Respondent to pay £1,485.85 gross in respect of that unpaid salary.
It also found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded damages equivalent to one week's pay, namely £342.88. In addition, the tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay accrued holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £685.76, equivalent to two weeks' pay.
The tribunal stated that the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £2,514.59 in respect of her successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's salary for June 2023 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,485.85. | Upheld | — | £1,486 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded damages based on one week's pay. | Upheld | — | £343 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's accrued holiday entitlement and awarded two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £686 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,515
- 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.