Case 6012220/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs A Hendry v Naio Nails (Distribution) Limited — 2025

Case reference: 6012220/2024
Decision date: 10 April 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gould REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs A Hendry

Respondent

Naio Nails (Distribution) Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded a basic award of £2,497.95 and a compensatory award of £7,694.68. The compensatory award included a section 38 Employment Act 2002 uplift of £2,220.40 because the respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars complying with section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment also records that the recoupment regulations applied, with a prescribed element of £3,278.60 for the period 2 August 2024 to 10 February 2025 and an excess of £6,914.03.

Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,497.95 on termination, but there was no separate entitlement to payment because the basic award for unfair dismissal was the same amount. The tribunal upheld the notice pay, holiday pay, employee pension contribution, and employer pension contribution claims, awarding £832.65, £1,816.43, £417.84, and £307.68 respectively. The claim concerning payment of employee tax and National Insurance to HMRC from 16 February 2024 to termination was dismissed.

The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to give the claimant itemised pay statements required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 between 17 February 2024 and 2 August 2024. It also found un-notified deductions from pay in the 13 weeks before the claim form was presented, and ordered repayment of £641.09 net for those deductions.

Claims and outcomes

9 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal unfair under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded a basic award of £2,497.95 and a compensatory award of £7,694.68, which included a section 38 Employment Act 2002 uplift of £2,220.40 because the respondent failed to provide a compliant written statement of particulars.	Upheld	—	£10,193
Redundancy	Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,497.95 on termination, but no separate payment was made because that amount matched the basic award for unfair dismissal.	Other	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal upheld the notice pay claim and awarded £832.65 damages, calculated by reference to gross pay.	Upheld	—	£833
Holiday pay	The tribunal found accrued holiday pay remained unpaid at termination and awarded £1,816.43 as the net value due.	Upheld	—	£1,816
Breach of contract	The tribunal upheld the claim concerning employee pension contributions deducted from pay but not paid to the pension provider, and awarded £417.84.	Upheld	—	£418

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £10,193; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £2,498; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £7,695; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.