Case 2305125/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs H Mahajuodeen v Mills Family Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 2305125/2019
Decision date: 11 February 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Andrews Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs H Mahajuodeen

Respondent

Mills Family Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Andrews recorded a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent had not entered a response. On that basis, the claimant's unfair dismissal claim and detriment claim succeeded. The judgment does not set out the underlying facts or make any merits findings beyond the Rule 21 consequence of no response.

The judgment did not determine compensation. Instead, it converted the hearing listed for 20 May 2020 into an in-person remedy hearing at London South ET, Montague Court, 101 London Rd, West Croydon, CR0 2RF, and stated that the hearing remained listed at 2 pm. The respondent was permitted to participate only to the extent allowed by the judge dealing with that hearing.

The claimant was directed to bring three copies of the evidence relied on in support of her claims for compensation. No monetary award is stated in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Judgment under Rule 21 recorded that, because no response had been entered by the respondent, the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. No remedy was determined in this judgment; a separate remedy hearing was listed.	Upheld	—	—
Whistleblowing	Judgment under Rule 21 recorded that, because no response had been entered by the respondent, the detriment claim succeeded. The text uses the word 'detriment'; the case listing identifies the case as a Public Interest Disclosure matter.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.