Case 2204572/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Amber Evans v Beauty Consultants Bureau (UK) LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204572/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Amber Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Regional Employment Judge Wade therefore determined the claim on the papers under Rule 21, having considered the ET1 without a hearing. The listed hearing for 27 September 2021 to 1 October 2021 was vacated and the parties were told not to attend.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant monies owed to her. It ordered the respondent to pay a total of £4,038.46, made up of a statutory redundancy payment of £961.54, notice pay of £961.54, and arrears of pay of £2,115.38 for 1 to 30 March 2020. The tribunal also ordered the respondent to account to HMRC for tax and national insurance due on the arrears of pay amount.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Awarded as statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £962 |
| Other | Awarded as notice pay; the judgment does not give a separate legal label for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | £962 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as arrears of pay for 1 to 30 March 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,115 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,038
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.