Case 1302968/2022 · Employment Tribunal
SALLY ANN GIBBINS v Phb Ethical Beauty Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302968/2022
- Decision date
- 9 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
SALLY ANN GIBBINS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Sally Ann Gibbins was unfairly dismissed by PHB Ethical Beauty Limited contrary to section 94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded £53,537.26 net for unfair dismissal, stating that figure included the basic award, compensatory award and loss of statutory rights, although those elements were not separately broken out.
It also found that the respondent failed to provide a statement of employment particulars contrary to section 38(3) Employment Act 2002 and added £2,284 net because it was just and equitable to do so. Separately, the tribunal found the respondent failed to give the ten-week minimum notice period required by section 86 ERA 1996, describing that as both a breach of contract and an unlawful deduction under section 13 ERA 1996, and awarded £7,220.80 net.
On the remaining claims, the tribunal found a breach of Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, as amended, for failure to pay 40 days' holiday pay in lieu and awarded £5,776.64 net. It also found a breach of contract for failure to enrol the claimant in a pension and pay prescribed contributions, awarding £6,853.85 net.
The tribunal said the respondent failed to comply with the ACAS code of practice and increased the award by 25% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, amounting to £15,664.33 split as £13,859.13 and £1,805.20. It then ordered the respondent to pay £67,591 net in total, and recorded that it grossed up £64,947.28 to £117,345 before applying the statutory cap.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to section 94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The award of £53,537.26 net was said to include the basic award, compensatory award and loss of statutory rights, but those components were not separately itemised. | Upheld | — | £53,537 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide a statement of employment particulars contrary to section 38(3) Employment Act 2002 and added £2,284 net to the award on the basis that it was just and equitable to do so. | Upheld | — | £2,284 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent failed to give the ten-week minimum notice period prescribed by section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996 and treated that as a breach of contract and an unlawful deduction under section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £7,221 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found a breach of Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, as amended, for failure to pay 40 days' holiday pay in lieu. | Upheld | — | £5,777 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached contract by failing to enrol the claimant in a pension pursuant to section 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 and by failing to pay the prescribed contributions. | Upheld | — | £6,854 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £67,591
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.112(4) ERA 1996
- s.38(3) Employment Act 2002
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Regulation 14(2) WTR 1998
- Regulation 30(3)(b) WTR 1998
- s.3 Pensions Act 2008
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
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.