Case 3201733/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Y Barwick v Dr A Qureshi — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201733/2020
- Decision date
- 2 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Y Barwick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 2 November 2020 before Employment Judge Russell at the East London Hearing Centre. The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. The judgment records that the Respondent failed to present a response within the time limit, had been sent notice of the hearing and dial-in details, but still did not attend or take part.
The tribunal held that the claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, unauthorised deduction from wages, and breach of contract concerning sick pay succeeded. The written decision does not set out detailed liability reasoning in the extracted text, and it does not record any separate findings on remedy at this stage.
Remedy was postponed. The Claimant was directed to provide a schedule of loss, supporting documents, and a witness statement by 16 November 2020, and the tribunal said remedy would be dealt with on the papers if possible and otherwise at a further hearing. The judgment also stated that the Respondent was entitled to copies of documents and notice of any hearing, but could only participate to the extent permitted by an Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as 'breach of contract (sick pay)'. | Upheld | — | — |
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.