Case 6027029/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Nehakumari Mistry v SAMY Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6027029/2025
- Decision date
- 5 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Nehakumari Mistry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Nehakumari Mistry was constructively and unfairly dismissed by Samy (County) Ltd. It ordered the respondent to pay £6,205.04 net in compensation for unfair dismissal, comprising a basic award of £5,657 and a compensatory award of £548.04. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay £4,968 net for an unlawful deduction of wages. Ms Mistry is responsible for any tax and national insurance liability on that payment. A further £880 net was awarded under a preparation time order, bringing the total award to £12,053.04. The tribunal stated that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | £6,205 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award was stated to be net. The claimant is responsible for any tax and national insurance liability on this payment. | Upheld | — | £4,968 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,053
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,657
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £548
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.