Case 2415148/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss CL Fortune v C-Beauty Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415148/2021
- Decision date
- 24 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss CL Fortune
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in Miss CL Fortune’s claim against C-Beauty Limited. Employment Judge Horne found that the respondent had made an unauthorized deduction from the claimant’s holiday pay and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,151.40. The judgment also found that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,070.40.
The tribunal further found that the respondent breached the claimant’s contract by failing to give notice of termination, and awarded damages of £2,343.20. The judgment notes that the respondent may deduct tax and national insurance from the judgment sum, except in relation to the redundancy payment.
The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £6,565.00. The accompanying interest notice states the relevant judgment day as 24 June 2022, the calculation day as 25 June 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8%, but no separate interest figure is included in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as an unauthorized deduction from the claimant’s holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,151 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,070 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the contract by failing to give notice of termination. | Upheld | — | £2,343 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,565
- 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.