Case 2203117/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Mirabdolhagh Hezaveh v Headmasters Salons Ltd Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203117/2019
- Decision date
- 14 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Mirabdolhagh Hezaveh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss N Mirabdolhagh Hezaveh worked for Headmasters Salons Ltd as a Salon Trainee Manager from 24 January or 11 February 2019 until 28 May 2019. In her claim presented on 21 August 2019, she alleged direct discrimination and/or harassment related to race, religion and/or sexual orientation, victimisation, and arrears of wages. The case had already been the subject of multiple case management orders requiring disclosure, a schedule of loss, and exchange of witness statements.
At the preliminary hearing on 13 September 2021, the respondent applied for strike out under Rule 37, relying on repeated failures to comply with those orders, a failure actively to pursue the claim, and conduct said to make a fair hearing impossible. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had still not provided the missing WhatsApp messages, had not exchanged her own witness statement, and had not explained why the documents could not be located or why the agreed deadlines were missed. Although the claimant referred to illness and to the birth of twins in February 2021, no medical evidence was produced to support the repeated requests for more time, apart from confirmation of the twins' birth.
The claimant did not attend the hearing and did not provide medical evidence for her non-attendance or an application for postponement. The tribunal found a repeated pattern of non-compliance, noted that the respondent remained without documents needed for preparation, and concluded that the prejudice was sufficient to make the hearing unfair. The claim was therefore struck out under Rule 37, and the listed hearing dates on 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 October 2021 were vacated. No substantive merits findings or monetary remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records harassment as pleaded 'related to race and/or religion and/or sexual orientation' but does not separate it by a single protected characteristic. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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.