Case 2501060/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Hind v Hadleys Hairdressing (Burnopfield) Ltd Heard: Remotely by telephone — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501060/2021
- Decision date
- 7 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Hind
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not enter an appearance, and Employment Judge S Shore dealt with liability and remedy on the material available under Rule 21. The claimant, Miss C Hind, had been employed from 18 April 2018 to 23 March 2021, worked 15 hours a week, was paid £6.45 per hour, and had an average gross weekly wage of £96.75. The judge recorded that she was 20 years old at the effective date of termination and below the tax and National Insurance threshold, so no deductions were to be made from the awards.
The two TUPE claims failed because the tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer of the claimant's employment in February 2021. On that basis, the claim for automatic unfair dismissal under Regulation 7 of TUPE 2006 failed, and the claim for failure to consult under Regulations 13 and 15 also failed. The separate unfair dismissal claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The tribunal also found that the reason for dismissal was an act of direct sex discrimination, and the sex discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award for unfair dismissal of £96.75, calculated as two weeks' gross pay multiplied by 0.5 because the claimant was aged 20 or younger throughout her employment. It made no compensatory award under the unfair dismissal head, so there was no uplift on that head. The respondent's failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice was found unreasonable, but the 25% uplift was applied only to the notice pay and holiday pay awards.
For breach of contract, the tribunal awarded four weeks' notice pay of £387 and applied a 25% uplift, producing £483.75. For holiday pay, it awarded 2.8 weeks' pay of £270.90 and applied the 25% uplift recorded in the judgment, producing £337.63. For sex discrimination, it awarded £9,000 for injury to feelings, interest of £392.03 on that award, £5,031 for lost earnings from 20 April 2021, and £92.34 interest on the lost earnings award. The total payable was £15,433.50.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Automatic unfair dismissal because of a TUPE transfer under Regulation 7 failed because the tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer of the claimant's employment in February 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Failure to consult on a TUPE transfer under Regulations 13 and 15 failed because the tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer of the claimant's employment in February 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded a basic award only and said there was no compensatory award under this head because the loss was compensated under the Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | — | £97 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay notice pay succeeded. The tribunal awarded four weeks' wages of £387 plus a 25% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £484 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay succeeded. The tribunal awarded 2.8 weeks' pay of £270.90 plus a 25% ACAS uplift as recorded in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £338 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The separate claim for failure to pay wages was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,434
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £97
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Regulation 7 TUPE 2006
- Regulations 13 and 15 TUPE 2006
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 4 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- ACAS Code of Practice 1 (2015)
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.