Case 3305986/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Beadsworth v Hasan Yurga and 2 others — 2018
- Case reference
- 3305986/2018
- Decision date
- 4 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Byrne Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs H Beadsworth
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal recorded that no response had been received to the claims. It therefore held that the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and outstanding wages against the second respondent succeeded, and that the claim for direct disability discrimination against both respondents also succeeded.
The judgment did not assess remedy. It stated that the amount of remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be considered at a later remedy hearing, and that the hearing listed for 4 October 2018 would consider what further directions were required so that the tribunal could properly assess the claimant's entitlement.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim brought against the second respondent only; no response was received and the claim succeeded under the Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for outstanding wages brought against the second respondent only; no response was received and the claim succeeded under the Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim succeeded against both respondents; no response was received. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.