Case 3324323/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Rokad, counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3324323/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs A E Brown, Mr S Woodward
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms A Rokad, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr C Doherty was not dismissed by Antone’s House of Hair Limited. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal also dismissed the direct disability discrimination claim and the disability-related harassment claim, finding that those claims were not well founded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £282.75 for unauthorised deduction from wages. It also ordered payment of two weeks' wages at £250 per week under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions. The total award was £782.75, and the judgment records that the recoupment provisions do not apply.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of direct disability discrimination was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The claim of disability-related harassment was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was ordered to pay £282.75 in respect of unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £283 |
| Other | The respondent was ordered to pay two weeks' wages at £250 per week under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £783
- across all upheld claims
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.