Case 1302069/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Tranter v 1000 Heads Salons Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302069/2022
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Platt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Tranter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. Those deductions were made up of unpaid wages for January 2022 (£1,050.00), unpaid wages for February 2022 (£769.20), and four weeks' unpaid holiday pay (£1,538.48). The tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £3,357.68 gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had not issued the claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment, contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For that breach, the tribunal ordered payment of £769.24, stated to be two weeks' gross pay. The overall monetary awards in the judgment total £4,126.92.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions found in respect of unpaid wages for January 2022 (£1,050.00), unpaid wages for February 2022 (£769.20), and four weeks' unpaid holiday pay (£1,538.48). The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £3,358 |
| Other | The respondent failed to issue a written statement of particulars of employment in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal ordered payment of £769.24, described as two weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,127
- 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.