Case 3311478/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Morris Medina v Stylesynergy Limited formerly trading as Fafu Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311478/2024
- Decision date
- 21 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Morris Medina
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 14 November 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim, or part of it, under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. On that basis, the tribunal dealt with the claims then before it and made findings on wages, notice, and holiday entitlement.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £322.80 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,971.53.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £538 gross. The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £2,832.33 in total. The hearing listed on 27 March 2026 was to determine the claimant’s outstanding unfair dismissal complaint.
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 made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £322.80 gross. | Upheld | — | £323 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,971.53. | Upheld | — | £1,972 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £538 gross. | Upheld | — | £538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,832
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.