Case 6006678/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MISS CHLOE HANCOX v Star Beauty & Nails Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6006678/2024
- Decision date
- 11 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MISS CHLOE HANCOX
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was listed for a final hearing in March 2026. The respondent's liquidator had previously told the tribunal that the claim would not be defended, and the time estimate was reduced accordingly.
There was no file of documents or witness statements before the tribunal. The claimant did not attend the hearing, told the clerk by telephone that she was unable to attend, and had not written to explain her absence or indicate whether she intended to proceed by 19 March 2026.
Having regard to those circumstances, including the absence of evidence, apparent failure to comply with directions, non-attendance, lack of correspondence since 17 December 2024, and Rule 47, the tribunal dismissed the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Maternity and Pregnancy Rights. The short judgment does not set out the claim particulars and dismisses the claims under Rule 47 after non-attendance and absence of evidence. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Unlawful Deduction from Wages. The short judgment does not set out the claim particulars and dismisses the claims under Rule 47 after non-attendance and absence of evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The gov.uk listing includes Time Limits. The judgment gives no further particulars and records that the claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.