Case 1802764/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mitchell Phillips Barbers Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802764/2021
- Decision date
- 13 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file a response form. The Tribunal recorded that it had been told the company had ceased trading and that an application had been made to dissolve it. The judgment also records that the claimant was entitled to notice of that application and to object, and that if the company was insolvent the sums owed might be payable from the National Insurance Fund.
Proceeding under Rule 21, Employment Judge JM Wade said there was sufficient information on the file to give judgment. The claimant's complaints of unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract, and unpaid holiday pay succeeded.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant gross sums of £193.50 in respect of notice pay, £336.00 in respect of unpaid wages, and £910.57 in respect of holiday pay. The judgment states that the claimant is to account for any tax and employee national insurance on those sums.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages succeeded and awards unpaid wages of £336.00. | Upheld | — | £336 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of breach of contract succeeded and awards notice pay of £193.50. | Upheld | — | £194 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unpaid holiday pay succeeded and awards £910.57. | Upheld | — | £911 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,440
- across all upheld claims
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.