Case 2407945/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Liversidge v Gillian Saleem — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407945/2022
- Decision date
- 10 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Liversidge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRegional Employment Judge Franey, sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 7 February 2023, dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that Miss H Liversidge did not have the two years of continuous employment required to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, so the claim could not succeed.
The tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay, treating it as a well-founded claim for unlawful deductions from wages. It ordered Gillian Saleem to pay the claimant the gross sum of £460.80, said to represent 48 hours of work in August 2022 for which no payment had been made.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The separate interest notice stated that the relevant decision day was 10 February 2023, the calculation day was 11 February 2023, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment and therefore did not have the right to bring the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Found well-founded in respect of 48 hours of work in August 2022 for which no payment had been made. | Upheld | — | £461 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £461
- across all upheld claims
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.