Case 2501539/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Dowsey v Identity Hair and Beauty Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501539/2022
- Decision date
- 17 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Dowsey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Dowsey brought a claim for a redundancy payment against Identity Hair and Beauty Limited. The respondent did not file a response, and the tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 without a hearing on the basis of the claim form and the information provided by the claimant.
The tribunal held that the claim for a redundancy payment was well-founded under section 164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,554.00.
The tribunal said the calculation was based on 21 years of service, taking into account the date on which the claimant would have been dismissed had the respondent given the correct notice, and a gross weekly wage of £253. The hearing listed for 11 November 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim allowed under section 164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal calculated the redundancy payment using 21 years' service, treating the service as completed under the age of 41 and using a gross weekly wage of £253.00. | Upheld | — | £4,554 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,554
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.