Case 2500788/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Rutherford v Baber Khan — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500788/2023
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Rutherford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sweeney determined liability on 7 July 2023 under Rule 21 after the respondent did not appear. The tribunal held that Ms Rutherford’s ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98(4) ERA 1996 was well founded and succeeded, and that her wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded.
The judgment also recorded that, when proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its obligation to provide a statement of initial particulars and a statement of change under sections 1 and 4 ERA 1996. The tribunal did not determine remedy in this decision. It stated that the question of remedy and liability for the complaints of detriment under section 48 ERA 1996 and automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 would be decided at a final hearing listed for 20 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98(4) ERA 1996 was well founded and succeeded. Remedy was not determined in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. No separate remedy figure was set in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 21
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.4 ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
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.