Case 2304410/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) QWE & (2) RTE v Shiry Ltd t/a Persia Hove — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304410/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs Nicola Beeston, Ms Alison Sansome
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) QWE & (2) RTE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint upon withdrawal. It upheld harassment related to sex for both Claimants on the basis of the conduct it listed, including the squeezing of both Claimants' arms, repeated threats to kill them, aggressive handling of QWE, comments to QWE about the respondent's anger, a remark that girls their age were married with two children, and a comment by Ali to RTE about her looks and whether she had a boyfriend. It also upheld harassment related to age, finding that the Claimants were removed from the WhatsApp group through which they accessed their rota, which the tribunal recorded as resulting in their dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | Upheld for conduct including squeezing both Claimants' arms, repeated threats to kill them, aggressive handling of QWE, a comment to QWE about dealing with the respondent's anger, a remark that girls their age were married with two children, and a comment by Ali to RTE about her looks and whether she had a boyfriend. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Upheld because the Claimants were removed from the WhatsApp group where they accessed their rota, which the tribunal recorded as resulting in their dismissal. | Upheld | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £62,640
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £13,275
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.