Case 2601445/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Muhammad Ghaffar v Beauty Spot (Notts) Ltd (first Respondent) Mr Rashid Majid (second Respondent) — 2024

Case reference: 2601445/2022
Decision date: 23 February 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge N Wilson
Venue: Nottingham Tribunal
Panel members: Mr J Akhtar, Mr D Green

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Muhammad Ghaffar

Respondent

Beauty Spot (Notts) Ltd (first Respondent) Mr Rashid Majid (second Respondent)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal (Employment Judge N Wilson with Mr J Akhtar and Mr D Green) unanimously found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by both respondents for reasons arising from his disability, and that the first and second respondents subjected him to discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA), indirect discrimination (s.19 EqA), and failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20-21 EqA). The first respondent was also found to have made an unlawful deduction from wages by failing to pay statutory sick pay/holiday pay, failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars, and failed to provide written reasons for dismissal. A claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements was dismissed upon withdrawal.

The parties agreed remedy by consent. The second respondent was to pay £45,193.75 (basic award £5,985, loss of statutory rights £350, loss of earnings £14,820, injury to feelings £15,000, plus 25% ACAS uplift £9,038.75) by structured instalments to 1 November 2024. The first respondent was to pay £11,551.21 (holiday pay £5,043.36, SSP £1,092.85, notice pay £4,275, failure to provide written reasons £570, failure to provide written particulars £570).

The total agreed award was £56,744.96.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Claimant was unfairly dismissed by both respondents for reasons arising from his disability.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010): dismissal.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Indirect discrimination on grounds of disability (s.19 EqA 2010).	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to comply with duty to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20 and 21 EqA 2010).	Upheld	Disability	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Failure to pay statutory sick pay/holiday pay by the first respondent (s.23 ERA 1996).	Upheld	—	—
Other	Claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £56,745; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £5,985; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £14,820; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

6 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.