Case 2305076/2020 · Employment Tribunal
H Windsor v Matthew Law t/a Beauty Spa and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305076/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
H Windsor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and the First Respondent. The Second Respondent filed no Response, knew about the claim, and did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal found that the Second Respondent employed the Claimant as a Beauty Therapist and that, even after her bankruptcy in November 2019, the Second Respondent continued to run Beauty Spa and the Claimant continued to be employed by her.
On that basis, the Tribunal entered judgment that the Second Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant, failed to pay notice pay, failed to pay outstanding holiday pay on termination, and unlawfully deducted the Claimant’s wages. The extracted reasons do not set out separate monetary awards or a split of any compensation between the different heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Second Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant. The reasons record that the Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and the First Respondent, that the Second Respondent filed no Response and did not attend the hearing, and that the Tribunal found the Second Respondent employed the Claimant as a Beauty Therapist. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the Second Respondent failed to pay the Claimant notice pay. This is classified as breach_of_contract because the extracted text does not use the term wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the Second Respondent failed to pay the Claimant outstanding holiday pay on termination. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Second Respondent unlawfully deducted the Claimant’s wages. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
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.