Case 3201875/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Caroline Conry v The Hair Company — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201875/2020
- Decision date
- 26 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Caroline Conry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent conceded liability, and the hearing on 17 March 2021 proceeded to remedy only. Employment Judge Barrett found that the Claimant's contract required one week's notice on dismissal, which had not been given. The Tribunal therefore awarded £90 gross for breach of contract, representing one week's gross pay.
The Tribunal also found two unauthorised deductions from wages. First, the Respondent had failed to pay 24 weeks' wages for the period 21 March 2020 to 2 September 2020, and the Tribunal ordered payment of £2,160 gross. Second, the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant in lieu of 2.7 weeks' accrued but untaken holiday, and the Tribunal ordered payment of £243 gross.
The total sum ordered was £2,493 gross. The judgment does not identify any separate award for interest or any other remedy components.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction for 2.7 weeks' accrued but untaken holiday; gross sum awarded. | Upheld | — | £243 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal without the one week's notice required by the employment contract; award made at one week's gross pay. | Upheld | — | £90 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction covering 24 weeks' unpaid wages between 21 March 2020 and 2 September 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,160 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,493
- 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.