Case 2202677/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Mincheva v Barbering Management Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202677/2020
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Mincheva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss D Mincheva's unfair dismissal complaint and her claim for a redundancy payment were both dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal therefore did not determine those claims on their merits.
The claimant's separate breach of contract claim for notice pay failed. Employment Judge P Klimov found that the claimant was in fundamental breach of contract and that Barbering Management Ltd was entitled to dismiss her without notice.
The respondent's counterclaim also failed. The tribunal found that the respondent had not proved that the claimant's breaches caused the losses claimed, so the counterclaim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant's claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's claim for notice pay failed because the tribunal found she was in fundamental breach of contract and that the respondent was entitled to dismiss her without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim for losses allegedly caused by the claimant's breaches failed because the respondent did not prove causation of the claimed losses. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.