Case 2300097/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Searle v The London Hair Company Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300097/2019
- Decision date
- 20 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Searle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal recorded that Ms J Searle was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. It also recorded that her unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The only monetary award specified in the judgment was a basic award of £7,858.51. The judgment states that no separate award was made for redundancy because a basic award had been made. No compensatory award, interest, or other heads of loss were identified in the extracted text.
The listed hearing on 12 November 2019 was cancelled. The judgment is brief and does not set out fuller findings or legal reasoning beyond the Rule 21 template wording.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment. No separate award was made for redundancy because a basic award was made. | Upheld | — | £7,859 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but it does not set out separate reasoning in the short Rule 21 template. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,859
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,859
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.