Case 6014437/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. U Kienecker v Headquarters Hair Transplants — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014437/2025
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.V Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. U Kienecker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 24 April 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge T.V Ryan determined that a decision could properly be made on the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £10,000 gross. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,361.83 gross.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £12,361.83 in total, with the claimant responsible for any tax or employee national insurance contributions due. Judgment was approved on 25 November 2025 and sent to the parties on 5 December 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £10,000 gross. Determined under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £10,000 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,361.83 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,362 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,362
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.