Case 2203748/2020 · Employment Tribunal
MRS S HAYWARD v Rush Hair Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203748/2020
- Decision date
- 4 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P. Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MRS S HAYWARD
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs S Hayward was unfairly dismissed by Rush Hair Limited. Liability was determined in this judgment, but compensation for unfair dismissal was not quantified and was left to a remedy hearing if the parties could not agree a figure.
In giving directions for the compensatory award, the tribunal made findings that, had the respondent closed in March 2020 because of the national lockdown, the claimant would have been furloughed at 80% of salary, subject to the maximum of £2,500 per month. The tribunal also found that when the respondent reopened in July 2020, the claimant would have returned to work as a stylist, would not have been made redundant in October 2020, and would have been furloughed again on the same terms during the November 2020 lockdown until reopening.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract in dismissing the claimant without notice. Damages for that breach were likewise left to be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed between the parties. No separate monetary award was set in this liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment only; compensation was left to a remedy hearing. The tribunal directed that the compensatory award should be assessed on the basis that the claimant would have been furloughed in March 2020 at 80% of salary, subject to the £2,500 monthly cap, returned as a stylist when the respondent reopened in July 2020, would not have been made redundant in October 2020, and would have been furloughed again during the November 2020 lockdown until reopening. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. Damages were to be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.