Case 2402158/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Egerton v Tracey Gibbons trading as TJs Hair and Beauty — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402158/2019
- Decision date
- 18 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Egerton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response having been presented, the tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment on the information before the Employment Judge. It found that the respondent, Tracey Gibbons trading as TJs Hair and Beauty, employed Miss D Egerton as a nail technician at the salon at 21 The Mall, Exchange Square, Sale, Manchester.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £801.13, described in the judgment as 94.25 hours at £8.50 per hour.
The tribunal made no award in respect of the claimant's missing jacket because it had no jurisdiction in respect of interference with goods. The listed hearing on 14 June 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No response had been presented. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £801.13, calculated as 94.25 hours at £8.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £801 |
| Other | The tribunal made no award in respect of the claimant's missing jacket, stating that it had no jurisdiction in respect of interference with goods. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £801
- 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.