Ms H Nicholson v Delilah Cosmetics Ltd: 3306661/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2021 |
| Citation | 3306661/2020 |
| Date | 21 December 2021 |
| Published date | 12 January 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No. 3306661/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
FINAL HEARING
Claimant Ms H Nicholson
Respondent Delilah Cosmetics Limited
Heard:
Remotely by video On: 9 and 10 September
2021
Before: Employment Judge Stephen Shore
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant:
Respondent:
In Person
Mr S Sanders, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT AND REASONS ON
LIABILITY
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The respondent did not unfairly dismiss the claimant. The claimant’s claim of
unfair dismissal fails.
2. The correct name of the respondent is Delilah Cosmetics Limited and the
Tribunal records shall be amended accordingly.
REASONS
Brief Background and History of this hearing
1. The respondent, Delilah Cosmetics Limited is a retailer of cosmetics. It was founded
in 2104 by the claimant, Hannah Nicholson, Rupert Kingston and Juliet White. Mr
Kingston and Ms White are married to one another.
Case No. 3306661/2020
2
2. The claimant was employed as the Managing Director of the respondent from [2014]
to 16 April 2020, which was the effective date of termination of her employment.
3. The claimant brings a claim of unfair dismissal.
4. The claimant began early conciliation with ACAS on 23 April 2020 and obtained a
conciliation certificate on 24 April 2020. Her claim form (ET1) was presented on 16
July 2020.
5. There were no preliminary hearings in this case, which is unfortunate, as a
preliminary hearing could have dealt with some of the questions in the case at an
early opportunity, rather than them having to be dealt with at the final hearing. No
fault lies with either of the parties or their representatives for not dealing with matters
such as a list of issues before the hearing.
Housekeeping
8. The hearing was conducted remotely by video link. Neither party objected to this
method of hearing.
9. I had not received all the papers in the case when I started the hearing at 10:00am
on the first morning. I therefore spoke to the parties and advised them of the
position. I noted that the claimant was representing herself. I advised her that the
Tribunal operates on a set of Rules. Rule 2 sets out the overriding objective of the
Tribunal (its main purpose), which is to deal with cases justly and fairly. Rule 2 says:
“The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable Employment Tribunals to
deal with cases fairly and justly. Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so
far as practicable —
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and
importance of the issues;
(c) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings;
(d) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the
issues; and
(e) saving expense.
A Tribunal shall seek to give effect to the overriding objective in interpreting, or
exercising any power given to it by, these Rules. The parties and their
representatives shall assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and in
particular shall co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal.”
10. I also advised both parties that I would initially deal with liability in the case (whether
or not the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and whether any deduction to
compensation should be made because of her conductor because the dismissal had
been procedurally unfair, but may have been fair if a fair procedure had been
To continue reading
Request your trial