Case 4101906/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Ghulam v Hair and Beauty International Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101906/2023
- Decision date
- 9 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Ghulam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Z Ghulam's unfair dismissal claim against Hair and Beauty International Limited was dismissed. The tribunal, sitting by CVP before Employment Judge E Mannion on 7 August 2023, found that the claimant did not have sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
The claimant succeeded on her unpaid annual leave claim. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,044.64 subject to tax and national insurance, described as payment for 19.5 days' accrued but untaken annual leave. The claimant also succeeded on her notice pay claim, with the tribunal ordering £1,500 subject to tax and national insurance, recorded as £1,377 net, for four weeks' notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Successful claim for unpaid annual leave, described as 19.5 days accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £1,045 |
| Breach of contract | Successful claim for notice pay, awarded as 4 weeks' notice pay; the judgment records £1,377 net. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,545
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.