Case 1403512/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Twyman v Haircut 100 Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403512/2022
- Decision date
- 22 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Twyman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment after Haircut 100 Ltd failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim without a contested hearing and made findings on the papers.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered £1,225.00 gross. It also upheld the breach of contract claim in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,300.00.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,837.50. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered £3,030.00.
The total amount payable was £15,392.50. The hearing listed for 21 July 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,225.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,225 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,300. | Upheld | — | £3,300 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £7,837.50. | Upheld | — | £7,838 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £3,030. | Upheld | — | £3,030 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,393
- 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.