Case 2414722/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Nellie Ariane v White Haus Hair and Beauty Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2414722/2019
- Decision date
- 9 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mellor REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Nellie Ariane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for White Haus Hair and Beauty Ltd as a stylist/hairdresser from 1 April 2014 until she resigned by text on 18 August 2019. At the hearing the respondent conceded that she was a worker, and for the purposes of the claim also accepted employee status. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had conceded she was entitled to 28 days annual leave per year and that no adequate pay statement had been provided, while a separate complaint about rest breaks under regulation 12 Working Time Regulations 1998 was not finally determined at this hearing and was directed to a show-cause process before a full panel.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had taken holiday during the employment but that she had not been paid for annual leave. Because she had not particularised which parts of her case related to taken leave, untaken leave, or any refusal of leave, the tribunal did not determine the claim by reference to the Working Time Regulations in detail. It instead allowed the alternative unlawful deduction claim and awarded 28 days' holiday pay at £60 per day, subject to the two-year limitation period, producing £3,360.
On national minimum wage, the tribunal found two pay periods. For the period from 2014 to September 2016, when the claimant was paid a daily rate, it accepted her evidence that the amounts paid into her account corresponded to the days actually worked, so no underpayment was proved for that period. From around September 2016 the pay arrangement changed to commission-based payments, and the tribunal held that the respondent had not produced records sufficient to displace the presumption of underpayment for that later period. However, it also found that the claimant had sometimes been overpaid, and those overpayments had to be credited. The net shortfall found on the evidence was £2,225.29.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide adequate itemised pay statements under section 8 ERA 1996. It made a declaration on that point but no separate award because the claimant had already been awarded the value of the wage deductions. The total sum payable was £5,585.29, being £2,225.29 for the national minimum wage shortfall and £3,360 for holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | National minimum wage shortfall found for the period from around September 2016 to August 2019 after credit was given for overpayments; the tribunal found no underpayment for the earlier period up to September 2016. | Upheld | — | £2,225 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay succeeded on the alternative unlawful deduction basis because the respondent accepted the claimant was entitled to 28 days annual leave and had not been paid for it; the tribunal applied the two-year limit and awarded 28 days at £60 per day. | Upheld | — | £3,360 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide an adequate written pay statement under section 8 ERA 1996 and made a declaration only, with no separate monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,585
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.28 National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- Deduction from Wages (Limitations) Regulations 2014
- regulation 13, regulation 14 and regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.