Case 2302771/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Stringer v True Beauty Skincare Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302771/2019
- Decision date
- 30 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Stringer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered under Rule 21. The tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of five weeks' gross pay, assessed at £1,530.80.
It also found that the Claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, identified as one week, and awarded damages of £276.19. In addition, the tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment as required by s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded two weeks' gross pay of £612.32. The Claimant was noted as responsible for any tax and national insurance due on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages; ordered to pay five weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,531 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of one week's notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £276 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996; awarded two weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £612 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,419
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Rule 21
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 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.