Case 1600112/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Thorley v Mr Christian Donnelly t/a Acute Barbers and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600112/2022
- Decision date
- 15 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Russell Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss C Thorley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge R Russell held that the claimant was employed by Christian Donnelly trading as Acute Barbers, not Cathays Barber Shop Limited. Cathays Barber Shop Limited was incorporated after the claimant started work, and there was no evidence of any transfer of employment when it was formed, so the claims against respondent 2 were dismissed.
On the Equality Act claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had a physical impairment of menorrhagia, not endometriosis, at the material time. It accepted that she had heavy periods, but the medical records and her evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities such as walking, standing, eating, or travelling. The tribunal therefore held that she was not disabled for section 6 purposes and dismissed the section 15 claim.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 1 November 2021 by WhatsApp and that the reason in Christian Donnelly's mind was her attendance record, particularly absences he associated with Mondays. That could amount to some other substantial reason, but the dismissal was unfair because there had been no formal warnings, no meeting to discuss the absence, no opportunity for the claimant to explain herself, and no appeal process. The claimant was awarded a basic award of £935.55 and a compensatory award of £1,544.44, made up of £935.55 loss of earnings, £300 for loss of statutory rights, and a 25% ACAS uplift of £308.89.
On wages, the tribunal held that the contractual 15-minute pre-shift period was working time for national minimum wage purposes because the claimant had to be available and perform preparatory tasks. It found an unauthorised deduction from wages, but only awarded arrears from 1 April 2021 because earlier periods were outside the two-year backstop. The deduction award was £331.90. The claimant also succeeded on the written particulars issue: the generic contract did not satisfy section 1 ERA 1996, and the tribunal awarded two weeks' pay of £623.70 under section 38 Employment Act 2002. The total gross sum payable by Christian Donnelly was £3,435.59, and recoupment did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged disability discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that she had menorrhagia at the material time but that the condition did not have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, so she was not disabled for Equality Act purposes. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by WhatsApp on 1 November 2021. It accepted that the reason in Christian Donnelly's mind was her attendance record, which could amount to some other substantial reason, but held the dismissal unfair because there were no formal warnings, no meeting, no opportunity to explain, and no appeal process. | Upheld | — | £2,480 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant was required to attend 15 minutes before each shift and that this period was working time for national minimum wage purposes. The award was limited by the two-year backstop in relation to earlier periods, and £331.90 was awarded for the unpaid pre-shift time in the recoverable period. | Upheld | — | £332 |
| Other | Awarded for failure to provide a compliant written statement of employment particulars under section 1 ERA 1996, with compensation assessed at two weeks' pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £624 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,436
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £936
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,544
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
16 references- Clark v Harney Westwood & Riegels & Ors principles
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Limited
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Wilson v Post Office
- HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
- Bear Scotland Limited v Fulton and another
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Regulation 30(a) NMW Regulations 2015
- Regulation 32(1) NMW Regulations 2015
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.