Case 3300048/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M v Nisa’s Hair and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300048/2021
- Decision date
- 23 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs M
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was dealt with under Rule 21 after the respondent, Nisa's Hair and Beauty Limited, failed to present a response. Employment Judge Anstis amended the respondent's name to Nisa's Hair and Beauty Limited and entered judgment for the claimant, Mrs M G Rana-Magar, on the claims that were proved on the face of the papers.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £969.23. It also found that she had been unfairly dismissed and awarded £1,577.63 as compensation for unfair dismissal.
The claimant's claim for an uplift on her compensation was dismissed. The judgment states that no relevant ACAS code of practice applies to a dismissal for redundancy, so no uplift was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £969.23. | Upheld | — | £969 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded £1,577.63 as compensation for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £1,578 |
| Other | The claimant's request for an uplift on compensation was dismissed because no relevant ACAS code of practice applied to a dismissal for redundancy. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,547
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,578
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.