Case 2407784/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Brijakova v Laleham Health and Beauty Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407784/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss V Brijakova did not attend the Manchester hearing on 31 October 2023 and was not represented. The respondent, Laleham Health & Beauty Limited, was represented by counsel. Employment Judge Phil Allen recorded that, under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the claims brought by the claimant were dismissed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. It also states that written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made at the hearing or is presented in writing within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The written record records dismissal of the claims under rule 47; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the supplied text. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record records dismissal of the claims under rule 47; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the supplied text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The written record records dismissal of the claims under rule 47; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the supplied text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written record records dismissal of the claims under rule 47; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the supplied text. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.