Case 1801461/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Davies v G&D Hairstyles Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801461/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that Mrs H Davies had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,898.
The tribunal also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,916.75. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £483, making a total award of £9,297.75.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal. The hearing listed for 9 August 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,898. | Upheld | — | £2,898 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,916.75. | Upheld | — | £5,917 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £483. | Upheld | — | £483 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,298
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.