Case 3212725/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Highness Nail And Beauty Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3212725/2020
- Decision date
- 23 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a Cloud video hearing before Employment Judge Reed on 22 April 2021, the tribunal held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the wages of Miss Bethelmie (£186), Miss Samuels-Paul (£1,521.04), Miss McKay (£420) and Ms Muwonge (£2,382). It also found that the respondent breached Miss Samuels-Paul's contract by failing to reimburse expenses and awarded her £165.73 in damages.
The tribunal further directed the respondent to pay Miss Bethelmie £80 in relation to her preparation time for the hearing. Miss Spence did not attend and her claim was dismissed. The judgment contains no written reasons beyond these orders.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal also directed payment of £80 for her preparation time for the hearing. | Upheld | — | £186 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,521 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £420 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,382 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for failure to reimburse expenses. | Upheld | — | £166 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon non-attendance; no merits findings were recorded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,755
- 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.