Case 6041303/2025 · Employment Tribunal
N Masoud v Moneda Capital plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6041303/2025
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N Masoud
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Evans determined this case under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the respondent (Moneda Capital Plc) having failed to present a response on time. The claim was presented in the London South Employment Tribunal on 10 November 2025, and the respondent's name was amended to Moneda Capital Plc.
The Judge found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages of £3,500 each for July and August 2025, dismissed the claimant in breach of contract without giving the two months' notice to which she was entitled, and failed to pay her holiday entitlement for 10 days of accrued annual leave on termination. The respondent was ordered to pay £7,000 (wages), £7,000 (damages for breach of contract), and £1,750 (holiday pay), totalling £15,750 gross. The judgment notes the gov.uk listing categories include unfair dismissal, redundancy and whistleblowing, but the judgment text addresses only the wages, breach of contract and holiday pay claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions of £3,500 for July 2025 and £3,500 for August 2025. | Upheld | — | £7,000 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract; claimant entitled to two months' notice. | Upheld | — | £7,000 |
| Holiday pay | 10 days of accrued annual leave not paid on termination. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,750
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 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.