Case 2602198/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. R Simon v NJUK Hair & Beauty Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602198/2019
- Decision date
- 28 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. R Simon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss R Simon was employed by NJUK Hair & Beauty Ltd first as a hairdresser and later as an Assistant Manager. The central issue was the effective date of termination. It preferred the claimant's evidence and held that on 5 April 2019 Ms Nicola Clifford told her she could not return to the salon, should collect her things, and that the working relationship was at an end. The tribunal treated the later suspension and disciplinary correspondence as an attempt to row back from that earlier dismissal date, not as the point at which the dismissal first occurred.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had not advanced a potentially fair reason for dismissing the claimant on 5 April 2019. Even if conduct were treated as the reason, the tribunal found there had been no investigation into the allegations, no fair disciplinary hearing and no appeal before the dismissal. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, it concluded that the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses and was unfair. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's plans to set up her own salon did not amount to misconduct justifying dismissal on the evidence before it.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had not established repudiatory breach or gross misconduct. It found the claimant had simply been setting up her own business and that nothing in the terms before the tribunal prohibited that conduct. Remedy was assessed on the basis that the claimant had seven years' service and was entitled to seven weeks' notice, but she had already been paid until 3 May 2019. The tribunal therefore awarded £1,007.64 for wrongful dismissal, and for unfair dismissal a basic award of £2,467.44 plus a compensatory award of £723.51, comprising £41.40 pension loss, a £10.35 ACAS uplift under s.207A TULRCA 1992, and a £671.76 additional award under s.38 Employment Act 2002. It made no award for loss of earnings after 10 June 2019, no award for loss of employment rights, and recorded a total award of £4,198.59.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the effective date of termination was 5 April 2019 and awarded 3 weeks' net notice pay, after taking account of pay already received up to 3 May 2019. | Upheld | — | £1,008 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal on 5 April 2019 was unfair. The unfair dismissal award was made up of a basic award of £2,467.44 and a compensatory award of £723.51. | Upheld | — | £3,191 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,199
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,467
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £724
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay & Anderson
- Phiri v Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
- Cameron v East Coast Mainline Company Ltd
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.