Case 1402997/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v CICI T/a RAW Hair and Beauty Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402997/2020
- Decision date
- 15 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal ordered CICI t/a RAW Hair and Beauty Limited to pay Miss J. Dellimore holiday pay of £283.50, furlough pay shortfall for 1 March 2020 to 3 June 2020 of £1,272.70, and one week's notice pay of £207. Those sums were ordered to be paid forthwith.
It also found that the respondent subjected the claimant to direct pregnancy/maternity discrimination by refusing to entertain a claim for statutory maternity pay. For that discrimination, the tribunal awarded £4,000 for injury to feelings. The judgment also recorded that the statutory maternity pay claim itself was wrongly brought in the Employment Tribunal and had to be raised with HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £284 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Shortfall of furlough pay for the period 1 March 2020 to 3 June 2020. | Upheld | — | £1,273 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as one week's notice pay. | Upheld | — | £207 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found direct pregnancy/maternity discrimination in the respondent's refusal to entertain a claim for statutory maternity pay and awarded £4,000 for injury to feelings. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £4,000 |
| Other | The tribunal said the statutory maternity pay claim was wrongly brought in the Employment Tribunal and had to be raised with HMRC. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,763
- 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.