Case 2404404/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Clark v Vanity Beauty Salon Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404404/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs R Clark brought claims against Vanity Beauty Salon Ltd. The tribunal, sitting at Manchester by CVP on 19 October 2023 before Employment Judge Phil Allen, gave an oral judgment and later sent the written record on 24 October 2023. The decision was made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. On that basis, it held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,176, payable by the respondent.
The tribunal dismissed the claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract in relation to notice, and outstanding annual leave. It said it did not have jurisdiction to consider those claims. No separate award was recorded for those dismissed claims, and no interest figure or other remedy breakdown was stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,176. | Upheld | — | £1,176 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim, described as relating to notice, was dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for outstanding annual leave was dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,176
- 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.