Case 3303695/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jon Dann v Hairco & Beauty Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303695/2019
- Decision date
- 18 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jon Dann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Bedeau issued a Rule 21 judgment on 18 September 2019. The judgment records that the respondent failed to pay the claimant an unpaid bonus of £253.80 net, unpaid company car insurance of £298.76, four days' unpaid holiday of £348.80 net, and personal damages on loan/stressful time of £500.00, and ordered payment of a total of £3,787.40.
The decision is a short template judgment and does not set out detailed reasons or explain how the total award was calculated from the listed items. No lay members are listed, and no separate legal tests or additional findings are recorded in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Listed in the judgment as unpaid bonus of £253.80 net. The extracted text does not expressly state the legal basis for this item, so the classification is based on the substance of the claim. | Upheld | — | £254 |
| Breach of contract | Listed in the judgment as unpaid company car insurance of £298.76. The extracted text does not expressly state the legal basis for this item, so the classification is based on the substance of the claim. | Upheld | — | £299 |
| Holiday pay | Listed in the judgment as four days' unpaid holiday of £348.80 net. | Upheld | — | £349 |
| Other | Listed in the judgment as personal damages on loan/stressful time of £500.00. The extracted text does not identify a standard ET cause of action for this item. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,787
- 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.