Case 3303119/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Gebretsadik v Aysha Nilofer trading as Huriya Beauty and Care — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303119/2020
- Decision date
- 13 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Watford CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Gebretsadik
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone at Watford CVP before Employment Judge R F Powell, found that Mrs A Gebretsadik was at all material times an employee of the respondent, Aysha Nilofer trading as Huriya Beauty and Care. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. On that basis, the tribunal determined the claim on the evidence before it and made findings in the claimant's favour.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well founded and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,400.00. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim well founded and ordered payment of damages in the net sum of £1,200.00. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide a written statement of terms within the prescribed period, contrary to sections 1 and 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 equivalent to two weeks' wages. | Upheld | — | £375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,975
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.