Case 1801455/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Eaton v G&D Hairstyles Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801455/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Eaton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claims under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Maidment Date decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 21.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that Mrs A Eaton had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,764. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,748.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £147. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The monetary awards recorded in the judgment total £4,659, and the hearing listed for 9 August 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages ordered for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,764 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,748 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £147 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed upon its withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,659
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.