Case 2416382/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs S Aqil v Park Lane Recruitment Limited and 2 others — 2019

Case reference: 2416382/2018
Decision date: 11 January 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Franey

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mrs S Aqil

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 in favour of Mrs S Aqil on two complaints: unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination. It recorded that both complaints were well founded and succeeded. The extracted judgment does not set out any detailed factual reasons for those findings beyond the outcome itself.

The tribunal did not determine remedy in this decision. It directed that remedy would be decided at a separate hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone, with a two-hour time estimate. It also recorded that the case management hearing listed for 23 January 2019 was cancelled.

Before the remedy hearing, the claimant was ordered to provide a witness statement on remedy and an updated schedule of loss at least seven days beforehand, with two copies brought to the hearing. The respondents were to be entitled to participate only to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held the complaint was well founded and succeeded. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 and did not set out detailed reasons in the extracted text.	Upheld	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The tribunal held the complaint was well founded and succeeded. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 and did not set out detailed reasons in the extracted text.	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.