Case 1402847/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Aeffit Hussain v Helping Hands Midshires Care Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402847/2021
- Decision date
- 24 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
- Panel members
- Mr J Ruddick, Mr L Wakeman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Aeffit Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Southampton by CVP on 13 February 2023 before Employment Judge Beever, sitting with Mr J Ruddick and Mr L Wakeman. The claimant did not attend. Oral reasons were given on the day, and the written judgment records that no written reasons were produced unless requested under Rule 62(3).
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s direct race discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the claim was not well founded. The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, again finding that it was not well founded.
The judgment records no award of compensation or other monetary remedy. No separate remedy figures are identified for either claim, and the bottom-line outcome was dismissal of both claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim pleaded as direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim pleaded as automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.