Case 2601163/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v D Butler and L Butler T/a Gooseberry Salon — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601163/2021
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 12 May 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Butler decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claim succeeds. It does not set out separate substantive findings for each head of claim in the extracted text. Remedy was left to be determined at a Remedy Hearing to be listed as soon as possible, and the hearing listed for 6, 7 and 8 February 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The PDF judgment does not break out the claim heads individually. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk case listing categories; the judgment itself records only that the claim succeeds under rule 21. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The PDF judgment does not break out the claim heads individually. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk case listing categories; the judgment itself records only that the claim succeeds under rule 21. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The PDF judgment does not break out the claim heads individually. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk case listing categories; the judgment itself records only that the claim succeeds under rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.