Case 6004881/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Williams v Mazal Beauty and Wellness — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004881/2025
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer On
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined on the papers by Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer on 13 June 2025. The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out on the basis that she did not have the required two years' service to bring that claim.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages in December 2024 and ordered the respondent to pay £120.12. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant two weeks of notice pay and ordered the respondent to pay £530.72.
The total sum the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant is £650.84, recorded as a gross figure with the claimant responsible for any tax due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have the required 2 years' service to bring the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages in December 2024. | Upheld | — | £120 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay 2 weeks' notice pay; treated as breach of contract claim. | Upheld | — | £531 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £651
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.