Case 3305993/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v S Knowles (director of respondent) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305993/2024
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anderson found that the claimant's claims for unpaid payment in lieu of notice, holiday pay and redundancy pay were well-founded. The judgment does not record any dismissal, discrimination or other liability findings beyond those monetary claims.
The tribunal ordered Koncept Hair and Beauty to pay the claimant £10,204.95 net. That sum was described as comprising the elements of notice pay, holiday pay and a redundancy payment, and no separate apportionment was given between those heads of claim.
Payment was ordered within 28 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties, which was 3 April 2025. The reasons do not record any additional remedy components or legal tests.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid payment in lieu of notice well-founded. The judgment did not split the award between this head and the other successful monetary claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim well-founded. No separate figure was attributed to this head in the reasons. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy pay claim well-founded. The judgment recorded a single net total rather than a separate redundancy figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,205
- 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.