Case 1802633/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R G Tareen v Beauty Studio Man Ltd (t/a Beauty Studio by Superdrug) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802633/2021
- Decision date
- 6 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R G Tareen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUnder Rule 21, Employment Judge Davies found that Mrs R G Tareen had been unfairly dismissed by Beauty Studio Man Ltd (t/a Beauty Studio by Superdrug). The tribunal ordered a basic award of £1,054.34 and a compensatory award of £1,052.52.
The tribunal also found that the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £601.44. It recorded that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and that the claimant would have been entitled to a redundancy payment equivalent to the basic award if no basic award had been payable. The hearing listed for 24 August 2021 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered a basic award of £1,054.34 and a compensatory award of £1,052.52. | Upheld | — | £2,107 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £601.44. | Upheld | — | £601 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and said she would have been entitled to a redundancy payment equivalent to the basic award if no basic award had been payable. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,708
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,054
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,053
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.