Case 3201716/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Macey v The Vale Corporation t/a Upper Cut Hair Group — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201716/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brook
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Macey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn Mrs A Macey v The Vale Corporation t/a Upper Cut Hair Group, Employment Judge Brook, sitting alone at the East London Hearing Centre on 21 November 2019, recorded that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal because the parties had reached confidential terms of settlement. The extracted judgment does not contain merits findings or any quantified tribunal award.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. On the face of the judgment, this is a procedural disposal following settlement rather than a substantive determination of liability.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories for this case; the judgment itself records only that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal after the parties reached confidential terms of settlement. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories for this case; the judgment itself records only that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal after the parties reached confidential terms of settlement. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories for this case; the judgment itself records only that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal after the parties reached confidential terms of settlement. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.