Case 2603912/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Weatherall v Mr Dale Brewster T/A At Last Hair and Beauty — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603912/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Weatherall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mrs S Weatherall against Mr Dale Brewster T/A At Last Hair and Beauty. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £10,034.85 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,650. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £5,351.91.
The judgment records that all future hearings were cancelled. No separate findings on liability reasoning, legal tests, or additional remedy components were set out in the extracted text beyond the three monetary awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £10,035 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,650 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £5,352 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,037
- 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.