Case 1305254/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305254/2024
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs E Shenton, Mrs J Whitehill
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the final merit hearing in public at Birmingham from 11 to 15 August 2025 before Employment Judge Perry, with Mrs E Shenton and Mrs J Whitehill sitting as the lay members. Mrs N Karbia appeared in person and Mr F Levay (counsel) represented Mr Daniel Craig trading as Hush Hair & Beauty. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but the written record sets out only the dispositive orders.
The claimant’s complaints of direct race discrimination and victimisation under Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The judgment does not set out the tribunal’s oral reasoning in the written record, and no separate monetary award was made on either claim.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s complaint that she had been refused adequate rest breaks under regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Her claim for unlawful deductions from wages was dismissed, as was her complaint that she had not been provided with itemised payslips. No remedy figures are recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed together with the claimant’s victimisation complaint under Part 5 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed together with the direct race discrimination complaint under Part 5 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Complaint that the claimant was refused adequate rest breaks under reg. 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from wages dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the claimant was not provided with itemised payslips dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.