Case 3313573/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Mahmood (in person) For the v Blue Rose Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313573/2022
- Decision date
- 5 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
- Venue
- Reading Tribunal
- Panel members
- Ms C Whitehouse, Ms A Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Mahmood (in person) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing before Employment Judge Cowen, with Ms C Whitehouse and Ms A Brown sitting as members, the tribunal gave an oral judgment recording that the claimant Ms J Mahmood succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996. The same judgment also recorded that her claim of discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy under s.18 EqA 2010 succeeded.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction of wages, described in the judgment as a claim under s.14 ERA. The written extract does not set out the detailed reasons beyond stating that the judgment was given for the reasons explained orally at the hearing.
A remedy hearing was listed for 8 February 2024, so this extract records liability only and contains no award figures. The judgment was sent to the parties on 5 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.18 EqA 2010
- s.14 ERA
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.