Case 1602611/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S. Riaz v Glamour Forever Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602611/2020
- Decision date
- 24 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms S. Riaz
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 liability judgment in which Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan found for the claimant on the claims recorded in the order. The judgment states that Ms S. Riaz was unfairly dismissed by Glamour Forever Ltd, and that the dismissal was also automatically unfair on the basis set out in paragraph 2 of the judgment, namely protected disclosures and health-and-safety-related matters.
The tribunal also found that R1 subjected the claimant to detriments on the ground that she had made protected disclosures. In addition, it upheld the claimant's claim that R1 made unauthorised deductions from wages and the claim that R1 failed to provide written employment particulars.
No remedy figure was fixed in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the sum to be awarded to the claimant was to be assessed at a later remedy hearing. The judgment also records that R2 was not dismissed from the proceedings at this stage, with its status to be determined at or before the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by R1. The extracted text states that the dismissal was on 25 August 2021, which is inconsistent with the judgment date of 24 March 2021 and may be a typographical error in the source text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal further held that the claimant's dismissal by R1 was automatically unfair because the reason, or principal reason, fell within the protected-disclosure and health-and-safety wording set out in paragraph 2 of the judgment. The extracted text states that the dismissal was on 25 August 2021, which is inconsistent with the judgment date of 24 March 2021 and may be a typographical error in the source text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that R1 subjected the claimant to the detriments alleged in her claim form on the ground that she had made protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that R1 made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that R1 failed to provide the claimant with written employment particulars. | Upheld | — | — |
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.