Case 2402611/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Miss J Noon v Rakesh Ishwar Daryanani — 2019

Case reference: 2402611/2019
Decision date: 10 June 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss J Noon

Respondent

Rakesh Ishwar Daryanani

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Horne found that Miss J Noon was unfairly dismissed by Rakesh Ishwar Daryanani and that the respondent breached her contract of employment by failing to give notice of termination. The judgment also found that the respondent, as employer, was liable for unlawful discrimination against the claimant because of maternity.

The judgment further recorded an alternative finding: if the tribunal had concluded that the claimant was employed by Crosby Enterprises (North West) Limited rather than by the respondent, it would have held the respondent liable under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 for unlawful discrimination because of maternity, but would have dismissed the other complaints. No remedy figures are set out in the extracted judgment.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The judgment states that the respondent was liable for unlawful discrimination against the claimant because of maternity. It also records an alternative finding that, had the tribunal found the claimant was employed by Crosby Enterprises (North West) Limited rather than the respondent, the respondent would have been liable under section 110 Equality Act 2010 for maternity discrimination and the other complaints would have been dismissed.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—

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.