Case 2407569/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms J Seale v Mrs F Parisi trading as Beauty Within — 2024

Case reference: 2407569/2023
Decision date: 12 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ross
Venue: Manchester
Panel members: Ms N T Dowling, Mr B J McCaughey

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms J Seale

Respondent

Mrs F Parisi trading as Beauty Within

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal unanimously rejected the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages. That claim concerned 98 hours of unpaid breaks and was put at £1,078; the tribunal found it was not well founded and it failed.

The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010. It found that she was unfavourably treated because of something arising in consequence of disability when she was dismissed.

The tribunal also upheld the claimant's claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the case was listed to proceed to a remedy hearing on 25 November 2024, so no remedy figures were determined in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of 98 hours unpaid breaks, pleaded at £1,078, was found not well founded and failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 that the claimant was unfavourably treated because of something arising in consequence of disability when dismissed succeeded.	Upheld	Disability	—
Other	Claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

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.