Case 6002736/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Burd v Retro Pink @ Blue Barbers Club Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002736/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Burd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented to the London South Employment Tribunal on 26 January 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the materials before the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £8,154.36 gross, which includes £198 in tips. Wages due before 26 January 2023 were excluded by reason of the limitation provision in section 23(4A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,937.60, calculated on 10.2 weeks of accrued but untaken annual leave at a weekly rate of £288 (based on £9 per hour, 8 hours per day, four days per week).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum ordered for unauthorised deduction from wages, including £198 in tips. Excludes wages due before 26 January 2023 per s.23(4A) ERA 1996 limitation. | Upheld | — | £8,154 |
| Holiday pay | Calculated as 10.2 weeks accrued but untaken annual leave at £288 per week (£9/hour, 8 hours/day, four days/week). | Upheld | — | £2,938 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,092
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- section 23(4A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.