Case 3302889/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. J. Ghelani v Nikee’s Beauty Bar — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302889/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coll Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. J. Ghelani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended the final merits hearing on 6 January 2025. The judgment records that neither party had provided a bundle or witness statements, and neither party responded to telephone calls on the morning of the hearing.
Under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the tribunal dismissed the claim and counterclaim. The dismissed complaints were unlawful deduction from wages, holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations, and failure to provide a written pay statement or adequate pay statement.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was dismissed under Rule 47 after neither party attended or provided required materials. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint under the Working Time Regulations for holiday pay was dismissed under Rule 47 after neither party attended or provided required materials. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The complaint of failure to provide a written pay statement or an adequate pay statement was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The counterclaim was dismissed. The judgment does not identify the type of counterclaim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.