Case 2301539/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Davina Brown v The Hair Academy Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301539/2020
- Decision date
- 17 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Davina Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Brown worked for The Hair Academy Limited as a hairdressing tutor from 2 March 2020 to 2 April 2020 under a written contract for 12 hours a week at £22 per hour. In March 2020 the respondent moved to online teaching because of the Covid-19 situation, did not pay the claimant for that month, and then dismissed her after complaints about non-payment. The claimant later brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages and automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996; the respondent did not file a response and did not attend, so liability had already been determined by default judgment and this hearing dealt with remedy.
On the unlawful deduction claim, the tribunal relied on the P60 and pay slip to find that the claimant should have received gross pay of £1,320 during her employment and had not received any part of that sum. The respondent was ordered to pay £1,320 in respect of unlawful deduction from wages.
On the dismissal claim, the tribunal made no basic award because the claimant had not been continuously employed for a year. It found that had she not been dismissed she would more likely than not have remained on reduced furlough-style pay until the end of September 2020, moved to full pay from October 2020 when replacement staff would probably have been in place, and then suffered further loss until 11 April 2021. Using net weekly pay of £238.50, it calculated net losses of £4,960.00 for 2 April to 30 September 2020, £954.00 for October 2020, and £3,339.00 for 1 January to 11 April 2021, giving net loss of £9,253.80.
The tribunal grossed up that compensatory award by £2,961 to reflect tax and national insurance, producing a compensatory award of £12,214.80. It recorded that the claimant did not suggest any compensable injury from the dismissal. For recoupment, the prescribed element was £629.66 and the prescribed period was 2 April 2020 to 11 April 2021, leaving a balance payable of £11,585.24.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant had already obtained default judgment on liability for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996; this judgment assessed remedy only. | Upheld | — | £12,215 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the P60, payslip and the claimant's oral evidence that £1,320 gross had been due but not paid. | Upheld | — | £1,320 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,215
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,215
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
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.