Case 6019794/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J Jones v Pure Spa & Beauty Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019794/2025
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 28 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The hearing listed for 30 October 2025 was cancelled.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £549. It recorded the claimant's date of birth as 12.6.91, her gross weekly pay as £183, and found that she had completed 3 full years of service during employment from 26.9.21 to 6.3.25, resulting in a redundancy payment calculated as 3 x £183.
The tribunal also found that the complaint in respect of holiday pay was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £594.88 as payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holidays on termination of employment. The total sum payable by the respondent was £1,098.88.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal calculated the payment from a gross weekly pay of £183 and 3 full years of service from 26.9.21 to 6.3.25. | Upheld | — | £549 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded and ordered payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holidays on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £595 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,099
- 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.