Case 2600222/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Holmes v Prestige Hair and Beauty Clinic Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600222/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mrs R Holmes's claims against Prestige Hair and Beauty Clinic Limited were withdrawn by the claimant and therefore dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The decision was made by Legal Officer J Skinner on 10 June 2024 and issued to the parties on 18 June 2024.
No merits findings on the underlying claims are set out in the extracted text, and no monetary award is recorded. The judgment also notes the right, under regulation 10A(2), for a party to apply within 14 days for the decision to be considered afresh by an Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the case listing in the supplied context; the judgment text states that the claims were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the case listing in the supplied context; the judgment text states that the claims were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- regulation 10A(2) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.