Case 1600010/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Stickland v Joy Bird — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600010/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Stickland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff by CVP on 8 January 2021 before Employment Judge S Moore. The tribunal recorded that Miss Z Stickland was employed by Style Hair Studio Limited at the time of her dismissal for redundancy.
The judgment found that Ms Joy Bird was not the employer and dismissed her as a respondent. It also recorded that Style Hair Studio Ltd could not be added as a respondent because the company had been dissolved and was no longer a legal entity.
On the substantive financial claims, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,370.73, unpaid notice pay of £1,219.23, and unpaid holiday pay of £270.94. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,371 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records an award of unpaid notice pay; it does not separately label the cause of action, so breach of contract is the closest fit. | Upheld | — | £1,219 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records unpaid holiday pay; it does not use the statutory label, but the award is for holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £271 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,861
- 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.