Case 2400222/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Coop v Limited Edition Hair & Beauty Services — 2019
- Case reference
- 2400222/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Coop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 27 September 2019, Employment Judge Rice-Birchall heard Miss S Coop's claim against Limited Edition Hair & Beauty Services. The written judgment records that the tribunal found she had been unfairly dismissed and that the claim for unfair dismissal succeeded.
The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record provided does not include any separate remedy assessment, monetary award, or additional findings beyond the successful unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that Miss S Coop was unfairly dismissed by Limited Edition Hair & Beauty Services and that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. No separate monetary award is recorded in the written decision record provided. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.