Case 3311921/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v The Hair Studio Ampthill Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311921/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Members
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr A Hayes, Ms H Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal amended the Respondent's name to The Hair Studio Ampthill Limited. The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was found to be well-founded, and the Tribunal held that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. The complaint of pregnancy and/or maternity discrimination was found not to be well-founded.
The Tribunal awarded £738.46 as a basic award and £16,200 as a compensatory award for unfair dismissal. It increased the award by £1,477.20 under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, resulting in a total award of £18,415.66.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the sums payable in respect of unfair dismissal as a basic award of £738.46 and a compensatory award of £16,200, then increases the award by £1,477.20 under s.38 Employment Act 2002, giving a total award of £18,415.66. | Upheld | — | £18,416 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of pregnancy and/or maternity discrimination is not well-founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,416
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £738
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £16,200
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.