Case 2411475/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Collinge v AJ’s Hair, Beauty & Tanning Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411475/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Collinge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the matter under Rule 21 on the basis that the respondent did not contest the claimant's redundancy payment claim. It amended the respondent's name to AJ's Hair, Beauty & Tanning Ltd to reflect the correct title.
The tribunal found that Miss A Collinge was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. The award was calculated at 1.5 week's pay for each full year worked when she was aged over 41, using 9 years and a weekly pay figure of £208, which produced a redundancy payment of £2,808.
The hearing listed for 13 May 2024 was cancelled. The written notice on interest recorded the relevant decision day as 2 May 2024, the calculation day as 3 May 2024, and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum, with no interest payable if the sum is paid within 14 days after the decision was sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The respondent stated in its response that it did not contest the claimant's redundancy payment claim. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded statutory redundancy pay of £2,808. | Upheld | — | £2,808 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,808
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.