Case 2502718/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Thurgood v George Scott Hairdressers North East Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502718/2019
- Decision date
- 19 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Thurgood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Morris, sitting alone at North Shields Hearing Centre on 3 February 2020, dismissed Mr A Thurgood's unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment records that the complaint under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with reference to section 98, was not well-founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's contract claim that he was dismissed without receiving the notice of that dismissal to which he was entitled under his contract of employment. In contrast, the respondent conceded the Working Time Regulations 1998 claim under regulation 14 relating to holiday accrued but not taken at termination, and by consent the tribunal ordered payment of £39.87.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with reference to section 98, was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's contract claim for notice of dismissal under his employment contract was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The respondent conceded the claim under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the tribunal ordered payment by consent for accrued but untaken holiday at termination. | Upheld | — | £40 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £40
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- regulation 14 WTR 1998
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.