Case 2415317/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Miss L Edwards v Miss Gemma Boardman trading as House of GB — 2023

Case reference: 2415317/2021
Decision date: 12 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss L Edwards

Respondent

Miss Gemma Boardman trading as House of GB

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent, a sole-trader beauty salon owner, employed the claimant as one of two apprentices on a three-month trial period from 1 July 2021. The tribunal found that both apprentices were expected to build clientele and manage their own breaks around clients, and that the claimant had some difficulty doing so. It also found that there were wider concerns about advertising, professionalism, stock control and cleaning, and that many of the issues later relied on in the dismissal letter also affected the other apprentice, Ellie, who was warned but not dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The s.103A claim failed because the tribunal found no protected disclosure was made. It held that the claimant's own complaints about breaks related only to her own position and were not reasonably believed to be in the public interest; it also found the 3 September message from her mother was not made by the claimant or her agent, and the 15 September discussion could not have caused the dismissal because the decision had already been made.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The amended s.104 claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant, through the 14 September message from her mother and her own 3 September message, had asserted a relevant statutory right to rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations 1998, but found that this was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.