Case 1602550/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs H Harris v Coco Blush Boutique International Limited — 2024

Case reference: 1602550/2023
Decision date: 23 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Brace Representation
Venue: Newport

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs H Harris

Respondent

Coco Blush Boutique International Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mrs Harris started work on 26 June 2021 and transferred to the respondent under TUPE in October 2021. It rejected the respondent's zero-hours account, found that she worked regular 40-hour weeks as shop floor manager at £11 net per hour, and accepted that no written contract had been provided and payslips had not been given since at least April 2023.

On the dismissal issues, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 5 August 2023, not 18 August 2023. It held that the respondent had not investigated any alleged misconduct, had not warned the claimant, and had not offered an appeal. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, it found the misconduct reason was not made out and that no reasonable employer would have dismissed in those circumstances. The dismissal was therefore unfair and wrongful, with no contributory-fault deduction or Polkey reduction.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,632.99 and a compensatory award of £9,030.03, including a 25% ACAS uplift and £500 for loss of statutory rights. It also awarded £2,177.32 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under section 1 ERA 1996, found a breach of section 8 ERA 1996 for itemised pay statements and granted a declaration, and awarded £3,617.75 for 33.23 days' untaken holiday on termination. The total award was £15,369.43.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 5 August 2023, rejected the respondent's misconduct case, and applied section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach. It found no reasonable investigation, no warning, no hearing or appeal, and made no contributory-fault or Polkey deduction.	Upheld	—	£10,663
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held that the respondent was not entitled to dismiss without notice because the claimant's conduct on 5 August 2023 did not amount to gross misconduct. It awarded two weeks' notice pay as damages for breach of contract.	Upheld	—	£1,089
Holiday pay	The tribunal found 33.23 days of accrued but untaken annual leave at termination, made up of 28 carried-over days and 5.23 days accrued in the 2023/2024 leave year. It held the deduction from final pay for tax and national insurance was unauthorised.	Upheld	—	£3,618
Other	The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It awarded four weeks' gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002.	Upheld	—	£2,177
Other	The tribunal found a failure to give written itemised pay statements under section 8 ERA 1996 for the period 1 April 2023 to 5 August 2023 and granted a declaration on that complaint.	Upheld	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £15,369; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £1,633; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £9,030; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

14 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.