Case 1400058/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss WJ Wright v Shock Hair Salon Ltd (in Voluntary Creditors Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400058/2019
- Decision date
- 22 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss WJ Wright
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the Respondent's response after a letter dated 8 August 2019 gave it an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why strike-out should not follow because the response had not been actively pursued. The Respondent did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing, so the response was struck out.
After that, the Claimant succeeded in her claim for unlawful deduction from wages, and the Tribunal ordered payment of £575.66 gross. She also succeeded in her claim for breach of contract, with an order for £44.80 net.
The Claimant also succeeded in her age discrimination claim. The Tribunal ordered compensation of £4,822.60, and recorded that this included £800.00 for injury to feelings. The judgment stated that there was no claim for interest and cancelled the hearing listed for 9 and 10 December 2019.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £575.66. | Upheld | — | £576 |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £44.80. | Upheld | — | £45 |
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal ordered compensation of £4,822.60, which included £800.00 in respect of injury to feelings. The judgment recorded that there was no claim for interest. | Upheld | Age | £4,823 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,443
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,823
- 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.