Case 1310246/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Matthews v Let US Care 4U Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) (First Respondent) and Mr M A Iftikhar (Second Respondent) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1310246/2020
- Decision date
- 31 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Platt
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mrs S Ray, Ms J Beards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Matthews
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant succeeded on her direct sex discrimination complaint under section 13 Equality Act 2010 against both respondents. The tribunal also rejected the related harassment complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010, as well as the complaints of detriment under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondents did not attend the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,684 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £867 |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex under section 26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Sex | £4,500 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £743 |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment complaint under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,946
- across all upheld claims
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.