Case 6038817/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Lupton v Ciarajade Hair Salon Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6038817/2025
- Decision date
- 1 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Lupton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs N Lupton presented her claim against Ciarajade Hair Salon Ltd in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 21 October 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Ferguson decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs Lupton’s wages and ordered it to pay £800 gross. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £276.80 in damages.
The respondent had failed to pay Mrs Lupton’s holiday entitlement. The tribunal awarded £319.03 for 4.2 days, calculated using gross pay of £75.96 per day. The total sum ordered was £1,395.83.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award for unauthorised deductions from wages is gross. | Upheld | — | £800 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages. | Upheld | — | £277 |
| Holiday pay | Award for 4.2 days of holiday entitlement, calculated using gross pay of £75.96 per day. | Upheld | — | £319 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,396
- 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.