Case 2401246/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Wilkinson v Chapleys Beauty Clinic Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401246/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Wilkinson brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Chapleys Beauty Clinic Ltd. The tribunal rejected the complaint so far as it related to payment for all hours worked in October, November and December 2024, and that aspect of the claim failed.
The tribunal upheld the complaint in relation to accrued untaken holiday on termination. It found that the claimant had accrued 14 days, had taken 0 days, averaged 5.45 hours worked per day, and was entitled to be paid at an hourly rate of £5.28, described in the judgment as the Apprentice National Minimum Wage.
On that basis the tribunal calculated gross holiday pay of £402.86, less £57.34 already paid, leaving £345.52 gross outstanding. The respondent was ordered to pay that sum to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint that the claimant was not paid for all hours worked in October, November and December 2024 failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint that the claimant was not paid for all accrued untaken holiday on termination succeeded. The tribunal calculated 14 days accrued, 0 days taken, an average of 5.45 hours worked per day and an hourly rate of £5.28 (apprentice National Minimum Wage), giving £402.86 less £57.34 already paid and a balance of £345.52 gross. | Upheld | — | £346 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £346
- 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.