Case 2303642/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G. Barlow v Goodlife Barbershop limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303642/2022
- Decision date
- 1 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr. Okitikpi, Mr. Adolphus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G. Barlow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss Barlow was an employee of Goodlife Barbershop Limited from 27 July 2020. Her ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed, as was her complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages.
The tribunal found the breach of contract complaint well-founded and ordered payment of £462.50, described as one week’s pay plus a 25% uplift and calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that post-employment notice pay would be taxed. It also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded under regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered £4,972.50, described as 53 days plus a 25% uplift and payable gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax or national insurance.
When the proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide written particulars of employment, and the tribunal made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 equivalent to four weeks' gross pay, amounting to £1,480. The tribunal also found the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint well-founded and declined to make a recommendation.
For the discrimination claim, the tribunal awarded £33,850.52 for past financial losses, £2,255.45 interest on that loss, £12,500 for injury to feelings, £1,668.49 interest on injury to feelings, and a further £5,068.61 gross-up, producing a total award of £55,343.07. The tribunal also stated that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures 2015 and increased the awards in respect of the discriminatory dismissal, breach of contract, and Working Time Regulations matters by 25% under section 207A of TULR(C)A 1992.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Damages of one week's pay plus a 25% uplift; calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that post-employment notice pay would be taxable. | Upheld | — | £463 |
| Holiday pay | Found well-founded under regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998; award described as 53 days plus a 25% uplift and payable gross, with the claimant responsible for tax or national insurance. | Upheld | — | £4,973 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal awarded four weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,480 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint well-founded, declined to make a recommendation, and awarded compensation for past financial losses, interest, injury to feelings, interest on injury to feelings, and a further gross-up figure. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £55,343
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £33,851
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 207A TULR(C)A 1992
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Employment Tribunal's (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures 2015
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.