Case 2224597/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms K Costelloe (2) Ms L Bradley v Ace Hair and Beauty Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2224597/2024
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms K Costelloe (2) Ms L Bradley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at London Central before Employment Judge B Smith sitting alone. The respondent did not attend. For the first claimant, Ms Costelloe, the tribunal found that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages in July 2024 in the gross sum of £583.90 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum, with the parties responsible for any tax or national insurance payments.
Ms Costelloe’s complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal was dismissed. The extracted judgment does not set out further reasoning for that dismissal, but the formal outcome recorded is that the claim was not well-founded.
For the second claimant, Ms Bradley, the tribunal found that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages around July 2024 in the gross sum of £524.38 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum, again with tax and national insurance to be dealt with by the parties. The judgment does not record any other monetary awards. The total amount ordered under the two successful wage claims was £1,108.28.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant Ms Costelloe; unauthorised deduction in July 2024. | Upheld | — | £584 |
| Constructive dismissal | First claimant Ms Costelloe; complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant Ms Bradley; unauthorised deduction around July 2024. | Upheld | — | £524 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,108
- 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.