Case 2500349/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Wood v Rejoy Beauty Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500349/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
- Panel members
- Ms E Wiles, Mr S Wykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing at Newcastle on 4 and 5 May 2021, before Employment Judge A.M.S. Green with Ms E Wiles and Mr S Wykes, the tribunal reached a unanimous decision. It upheld the claimant Ms C Wood’s claim for detriment arising from her seeking to take a reasonable amount of time off during working hours to deal with the unexpected disruption or termination of arrangements for the care of a dependent. The tribunal found that claim well founded.
For that successful claim, the tribunal ordered Rejoy Beauty Limited to pay £1,250 as compensation for injury to feelings. The judgment does not break that sum down further.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s separate claim for automatic unfair dismissal for taking leave for family reasons. The judgment records that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parental leave | The judgment describes this as a detriment claim arising from the claimant seeking to take a reasonable amount of time off during working hours because of the unexpected disruption or termination of arrangements for the care of a dependent. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as an automatic unfair dismissal claim for taking leave for family reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,250
- 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.