Case 3200897/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mrs M Dacosta (2) Ms C Sadler v Browns Luxury Hair (Braintree) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200897/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mrs M Dacosta (2) Ms C Sadler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt East London Hearing Centre on 3 January 2024, Regional Employment Judge Burgher heard claims by Mrs M Dacosta and Ms C Sadler against Browns Luxury Hair (Braintree) Ltd. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Mrs Dacosta’s claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, accrued unpaid holiday pay and redundancy payment succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay her £1,832.55, made up of £266.00 for unpaid wages, £446.50 for notice pay, £151.05 for accrued unpaid holiday pay and £969.00 for redundancy pay.
Ms Sadler’s claims for unpaid wages and accrued unpaid holiday pay also succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay her £228.12, comprising £204.90 for unpaid wages and £23.22 for accrued unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mrs M Dacosta; unpaid wages element. | Upheld | — | £266 |
| Breach of contract | Mrs M Dacosta; notice pay element. | Upheld | — | £447 |
| Holiday pay | Mrs M Dacosta; accrued unpaid holiday pay element. | Upheld | — | £151 |
| Redundancy | Mrs M Dacosta; redundancy payment element. | Upheld | — | £969 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms C Sadler; unpaid wages element. | Upheld | — | £205 |
| Holiday pay | Ms C Sadler; accrued unpaid holiday pay element. | Upheld | — | £23 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,061
- 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.