Case 1600336/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Stephens v Plassey Hair Studio and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600336/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Dated
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss K Stephens
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not present an ET3 response. Employment Judge R L Brace therefore proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and decided the claim on the material available. The judgment records that there was sufficient material to make a proper determination.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's redundancy payment claim. It found that Miss K Stephens was dismissed by reason of redundancy by the second respondent, Mrs C Whitley t/a Plassey Hair Studio, on 23 September 2022. The judgment states that the claim was proved on the balance of probability against the respondents.
The tribunal accepted the claim form and the Confirmation of Entitlements document provided by the respondent as sufficient evidence to establish the amount due. It awarded a statutory redundancy payment calculated by reference to 19 years' service, in the sum of £8,159.36.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claimant was found entitled to a statutory redundancy payment after being dismissed by reason of redundancy on 23 September 2022. The award was calculated on 19 years' service and stated as £8,159.36. | Upheld | — | £8,159 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,159
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- balance of probability
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.