Case 2602662/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss G Hugill (2) Mrs E Argiolas v Miss Jade E Smith and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602662/2019
- Decision date
- 20 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Miss G Hugill (2) Mrs E Argiolas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Hugill did not attend the final hearing, had not responded to recent requests about the hearing format, and had provided no documentation. The judge said he was unable to determine her claim on the material available and dismissed it. Mrs Argiolas attended with her friend, Mrs Cook. Neither respondent filed an ET3 or took part in the remedy process.
The tribunal found that Miss Jade E Smith, trading as Assisi Hair and Assisi at the Spa, was the employer. Mrs Argiolas had answered an advert for a stylist at Assisi at the Spa, was recruited by Miss Smith in person, and throughout the employment there was no disclosure that any separate legal entity was involved. The tribunal found Miss Smith was in day-to-day control of the business and that nothing said or provided during the employment put Mrs Argiolas on notice that her employer might be AHL Cleethorpes Limited. Later payslips and HMRC records referring to AHL were produced only after the employment ended and did not alter the formation of the contract, which the tribunal held was between Mrs Argiolas and Miss Smith.
Accordingly, the second claimant's claims against AHL Cleethorpes Limited were dismissed, and her claims against Miss Smith succeeded. The tribunal awarded £743.43 net for unlawful deduction from wages, made up of two unpaid weeks at £228.30 each and further unpaid hours of £286.83; £318.75 for one week's notice pay; £510.00 for accrued but untaken holiday; and £1,275.00 under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 because no written statement of main terms of employment had been provided. The total sum awarded to Mrs Argiolas was £2,847.18.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | First claimant Miss Hugill did not attend the final hearing, had not responded to recent requests about the hearing format, and had provided no documentation; the tribunal said it was unable to determine her claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Second claimant's claims against AHL Cleethorpes Limited were dismissed because the tribunal found Miss Jade E Smith, not AHL, was the employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded against Miss Jade E Smith; the award covered two unpaid weeks at £228.30 each and further unpaid hours of £286.83. | Upheld | — | £743 |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded against Miss Jade E Smith; this was one week's gross notice pay. | Upheld | — | £319 |
| Holiday pay | Succeeded against Miss Jade E Smith; the tribunal found 8 days of accrued but untaken holiday, calculated as 1.6 weeks at £318.75. | Upheld | — | £510 |
| Other | Succeeded against Miss Jade E Smith; a further award under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of main terms of employment, set at the higher statutory rate. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,847
- across all upheld claims
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.