Case 1801463/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Jones v G&D Hairstyles Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801463/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,000.96.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,500. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £500.16.
The unfair dismissal claim did not proceed to a substantive determination because it was withdrawn, and the tribunal dismissed that claim on withdrawal.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 claimant was found to have been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The judgment was made under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £3,001 |
| Redundancy | The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was found entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £7,500 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,001
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.