Case 1600343/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Smith v C Whitley and J Whitley trading as The Plassey Hair Studio — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600343/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present an ET3 response. Applying Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge R Brace determined the claim on the available material and was satisfied that the claim for a redundancy payment could properly be decided.
The tribunal found that Miss G Smith was dismissed by reason of redundancy by C Whitley and J Whitley trading as The Plassey Hair Studio on 23 September 2022. The judge relied on the claim form and, in particular, the Confirmation of Entitlements document provided to the claimant by the respondent, and found the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.
The tribunal upheld the redundancy payment claim and awarded a statutory redundancy payment calculated by reference to 14 years' service in the sum of £4,037.11. No separate breakdown of compensation, interest, or other heads of award was given.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 23 September 2022 and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment calculated on 14 years' service. | Upheld | — | £4,037 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,037
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- balance of probabilities
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.