Case 3300727/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Smith v Staylists Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300727/2022
- Decision date
- 4 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 22 April 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal awarded £10,540.90 gross for unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of unpaid wages and pension contributions, and £3,333.33 gross for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. It also awarded £846.18 gross for unpaid holiday entitlement. Those three gross sums total £14,720.41.
Separately, the tribunal awarded a redundancy payment of £2,448.00, calculated as 4 complete years' continuous service multiplied by 1.5 and a weekly pay figure of £544, capped under section 227 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded for 4 complete years' continuous service x 1.5 x £544, with the weekly pay capped under s 227 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,448 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions were made from wages in respect of unpaid wages and pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £10,541 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £3,333 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £846 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,168
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £14,720
- 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.