Case 2204571/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Allison Cruise v Beauty Consultants Bureau (UK) LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204571/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Allison Cruise
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal made a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade decided the claim could properly be determined without a hearing, so the hearing listed for 27 September 2021 to 1 October 2021 was vacated and the parties were told not to attend.
On the basis of the ET1, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay monies owed to the claimant. It ordered payment of a statutory redundancy payment of £7,350, notice pay of £6,300, and arrears of pay for 1 March 2020 to 30 March 2020 of £2,310.
The total award was £15,960. The judgment also directed the respondent to account to HMRC for the tax and national insurance due on this amount. No discrimination, dismissal, or other substantive liability findings were set out beyond the default judgment on the unpaid sums.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £7,350 |
| Breach of contract | Described in the judgment as 'notice pay'; no separate legal label was given. | Upheld | — | £6,300 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay from 1 March 2020 to 30 March 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,310 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,960
- 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.