Case 2414784/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Jones v C-Beauty Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414784/2021
- Decision date
- 24 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, in a Rule 21 judgment, found that C-Beauty Limited had made an unauthorized deduction from Miss A Jones's holiday pay. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,605.50 in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also held that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £798.00. The judgment notes that the redundancy payment is exempt from tax.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract by failing to give notice of termination. It awarded damages of £798.00 for that breach. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £3,201.50, subject to the note that the respondent may deduct tax and national insurance from the judgment sum except for the redundancy payment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorized deduction from the claimant's holiday pay and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,605.50. | Upheld | — | £1,606 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £798.00. | Upheld | — | £798 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to give notice of termination and awarded damages of £798.00. | Upheld | — | £798 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,202
- 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.