Case 1805661/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Hazel v Ms S Armitage (trading as Belleza Spa) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805661/2020
- Decision date
- 1 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Hazel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 14 October 2020, the tribunal invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that the issue was whether the claimant had the requisite period of not less than two years' service with the respondent.
The claimant did not make written representations and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal complaint and the redundancy payment complaint on the basis that the claimant did not have sufficient service to be entitled to the rights claimed.
The judgment records that the remaining complaints were not determined at this stage and would proceed to hearing by CVP on 3 February 2021, with one hour allowed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal said the claimant did not have the requisite period of not less than two years' service with the respondent and did not make representations or request a hearing after the 14/10/2020 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out under rule 37 for the same reason: the tribunal said the claimant did not have sufficient service to be entitled to the rights claimed and did not respond to the opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
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.