Case 3303683/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Perry v Hairco & Beauty Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303683/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Determined
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Perry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Skehan determined the case on the papers only. The tribunal held that Mr D Perry's claim for breach of contract and/or unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded and ordered Hairco & Beauty Ltd to pay £2,994.98 within 14 days of the judgment.
The award was calculated by reference to unpaid wages of £1,931.19 net for the period 1 December 2018 to 31 January 2019, unpaid accrued holiday entitlement of £408 net, and damages for the claimant's 4 weeks' contractual notice entitlement of £1,632 net. The notice damages were reduced by alternative earnings during the notice period of £976.21 net, leaving £655.79 net.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment upheld the claimant's breach of contract element and included damages for 4 weeks' contractual notice entitlement, assessed at £1,632 net and reduced by alternative earnings of £976.21 net to £655.79 net. The decision did not allocate the total award separately between the claim heads. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment upheld the wages element and included unpaid wages of £1,931.19 net for 1 December 2018 to 31 January 2019 and unpaid accrued holiday entitlement of £408 net. The decision did not allocate the total award separately between the claim heads. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,995
- 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.