Case 2201483/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Bridget Healy, CEO/Director of the respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201483/2022
- Decision date
- 30 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a judgment by consent of the parties. It recorded that the respondent, The Skin Collective Ltd trading as Every Skin, would pay Ms E Asante by 4pm on 15 August 2022. The order was made under Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The consent judgment covered two claims. First, the respondent was ordered to pay £48.00 as compensation for breach of contract, described as notice pay, subject to tax and national insurance deductions if applicable. Second, the respondent was ordered to pay £62.72 for the unlawful deduction of wages claim, described as wage arrears relating to work carried out on 13 January 2022, again subject to deductions if required.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The judgment does not set out substantive liability findings beyond recording the parties' consent terms and the amounts to be paid.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Disposed of by a consent judgment. The tribunal ordered payment of £48.00 as compensation for breach of contract (notice pay), subject to any required deductions. | Settled | — | £48 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Disposed of by a consent judgment. The tribunal ordered payment of £62.72 for wage arrears relating to work carried out on 13 January 2022, subject to any required deductions. | Settled | — | £63 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £111
- 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.