Case 2200517/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Lucy Cargill (1), Ben English (2), Fatemah Jamal Al-Lail (3), Jessica Moorey (4), Lauren Jones (5), Fiona Boyd (6), Kayleigh Williams (7), Emma Saitch-Smith (8), Lucy Isherwood (9), Rachel Mooney (10), Emily Pearson (11), Sophia Weary (12) v Beautycom UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200517/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lucy Cargill (1), Ben English (2), Fatemah Jamal Al-Lail (3), Jessica Moorey (4), Lauren Jones (5), Fiona Boyd (6), Kayleigh Williams (7), Emma Saitch-Smith (8), Lucy Isherwood (9), Rachel Mooney (10), Emily Pearson (11), Sophia Weary (12)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to file an ET3. Employment Judge Khan considered the ET1 and correspondence from the claimants and decided that liability could properly be determined without a hearing under Rule 21.
The tribunal found that the claims for a redundancy payment, breach of contract (notice pay) and holiday pay succeeded. No monetary award was fixed in this judgment, because the remedy was left to be determined at a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Liability determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to file an ET3. Remedy to be determined at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Specified in the judgment as breach of contract (notice pay). Remedy to be determined at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Remedy to be determined at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.