Case 3201409/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Dixon v Glitz and Glam Salon and Academy — 2022
- Case reference
- 3201409/2022
- Decision date
- 28 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Dixon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the East London Employment Tribunals on 11 April 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Russell Date decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 04 August 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mrs L Dixon had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £1,670.62. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,505.93.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £807.52 for that head of claim. The total payable was £4,984.07.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment entered under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £1,671 |
| Redundancy | Judgment entered under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £2,506 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment entered under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £808 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,984
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.