Case 2400184/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Ware v AJs Hair, Beauty & Tanning Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400184/2024
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Malik
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Ware
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester by CVP on 1 July 2024 before Employment Judge Malik sitting alone. The respondent was amended to AJ’s Hair, Beauty & Tanning Ltd, and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s notice pay claim was well founded and successful, and ordered the respondent to pay £189 gross for one week’s statutory notice pay.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The respondent’s response stated that it did not contest the redundancy payment claim. On that basis, the tribunal awarded a redundancy payment of £1,701 gross, using a weekly pay figure of £189 and applying 1.5 weeks’ pay for each full year worked when the claimant was over 41.
The total gross sum ordered was £1,890. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of £189 gross, described as one week’s statutory notice pay. | Upheld | — | £189 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The respondent said it did not contest the redundancy payment claim, and the tribunal awarded £1,701 gross, calculated as 1.5 weeks’ pay for each full year worked when the claimant was aged over 41 (1.5 x 6 x £189). | Upheld | — | £1,701 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,890
- across all upheld claims
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.