Case 2410205/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Birchall v GTJ Hair and Beauty Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410205/2022
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Birchall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge KM Ross found that GTJ Hair and Beauty Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr C Birchall's wages and ordered payment of £392 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £784.
The tribunal further held that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,704, calculated as 12 weeks at £392 per week. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,624.
The judgment was sent to the parties on 2 October 2023. The accompanying interest notice stated that, if the sums were not paid in full within 14 days, statutory interest would accrue from 3 October 2023 at 8% per annum under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages; gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £392 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for notice were awarded at 12 weeks x £392. | Upheld | — | £4,704 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £8,624 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement was awarded. | Upheld | — | £784 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,504
- 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.