Employment Tribunal Decision: Disability and Sex Discrimination Claims

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 1 of 38

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant:

[redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Manchester (in public by CVP Video)

On: 2,3,4,5,6 February 2026 and in Chambers on 9 February 2026

Before: Employment Judge Dennehy

Representation Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Interpreter: [NAME_6] in Mandarin for Respondent and Cantonese for Claimant

RESERVED JUDGMENT

The decision of the Tribunal is that:

1. The claimant’s contract of employment being tainted by illegality her claims of:

(issue 2) automatically unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996; and (issue 7 and 8) unlawful deduction from wages for failing to pay wages and notice pay; and (issue 6) failure to pay outstanding holiday pay pursuant to the Working Time Regulations 1998, are dismissed.

2.The claimant is a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

3. The allegation of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010:

(issue 3.3.1) [NAME_8] continued to require the claimant to carry out housekeeping including washing towels when she knew of the claimant’s disability and that the claimant had complained about working with dust and fumes and protested that she was employed as a financial manager not as a house-keeper is well founded and succeeds.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 2 of 38

4. The following allegations of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010:

(issue 3.3.2) [NAME_11], [NAME_4]’s sister in law, told the claimant to resign and leave Ambleside as far as possible because she had a running nose and asthma due to the dust; and (issue 3.3.3) dismissed the claimant on 27 June 2023, fail and are dismissed.

5. The following allegations of direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010:

(issue 4.1.1) was the claimant instructed to eat leftover meals but not the sausages since Malaysians were not expected to eat meat; and (issue 4.1.2) was the claimant instructed not to use the Chinese language to speak to colleagues and guests and rebuked for doing so; and (issue 4.1.4) was the claimant dismissed without notice; and (issue 4.1.6) was the claimant required to work night shifts from 4pm to 11pm and seldom given morning shifts; and (issue 4.1.7) was the claimant denied a dinner allowance amounting to £13 extra pay and denied breaks when working the night shift, all fail and are dismissed.

6.The allegation of direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 (issue 4.1.3) was withdrawn by the claimant and is dismissed upon withdrawal.

7.The allegation of direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010: (issue 4.1.5) was the claimant told by [NAME_13] when she was dismissed that there was a company policy requiring the employee to hand in their passport in order to receive their arrears of pay, is well founded and succeeds.

8.The following allegations of direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010:

(issue 5.1.1) [NAME_15] at a meeting at his house say East European and Chinese women from poor countries were willing to become slaves to make English men happy?; and (issue 5.1.2) [NAME_15] allow male illegal workers to break into the claimant’s room, the girls’ room, with a master keycard during their shower and allow one such male worker to sleep in her bed; and (issue 5.1.4) [NAME_15] target the claimant as a woman because he viewed her as weak and vulnerable and needing her work visa; and (issue 5.1.5) Was the claimant dismissed without notice, all fail and are dismissed.

9.The following allegations of direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010:

(issue 5.1.3) [NAME_15] fail to pay wages especially to female staff including the claimant since he saw women as weak? The claimant contends this was

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 3 of 38

done to several female staff including British staff, [NAME_18]; and (issue 5.1.6) was the claimant told by [NAME_13] when she was dismissed that there was a company policy requiring the employee to hand in their passport in order to receive their arrears of pay, are well founded and succeed.

10.A remedy hearing for one day will take place in public via CVP on Monday 01 June 2026 starting at 10am.

REASONS

Introduction

1. This is my reserved judgment following the six-day hearing that commenced on 2 February 2026.

2. By a claim form presented on 10 November 2023, following a period of early conciliation from 26 September to 13 October 2023, the claimant brought complaints of: non payment of wages; non payment of holiday pay; non payment of notice pay; unfair dismissal having made protected disclosures; disability, race and sex discrimination.

3. The respondent by its ET3 disputes the claimant’s identity and raises an illegality defence, that the claimant could not pursue a claim because she had no legal right to work in the UK.

4. There have been two previous case management hearings: 14 June 2024 and 17 October 2024. Both gave case management orders, of which there had been partial compliance by the claimant and no compliance by the respondent.

Procedural Matters

5. The hearing had originally been listed in front of a judge and two non-legal panel members. Unfortunately, due to the unavailability of the panel members Regional Employment Judge Franey wrote to the parties on 30 January 2026 to advise that the hearing would be held by a judge sitting alone and if they objected to this then they should let the Tribunal know.

6. The respondent objected and made an application to postpone the hearing on the grounds that he wanted the matter to be heard in front of two non-legal panel members and not a judge alone. The claimant did not wish to postpone the hearing.

7. There was no bundle of documents, the claimant had sent in a witness statement, and some screenshots and 2 letters via email to the Tribunal. Nothing had been received from the respondent.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 4 of 38

The Documentary Evidence

8. Before hearing the respondent’s application to postpone I needed to ascertain what documents ie evidence, each party was relying on, what had been disclosed and seen by each party and the Tribunal, as no formal bundle of documents had been received by the Tribunal from either party.

9. I went through the list of issues, one at a time and asked each party to confirm what documents they were relying on for each issue, the date they had been sent to the other party and Tribunal.

10. [NAME_4] confirmed the only document the respondent was relying on was a passport photocopy which he agreed to send to the Tribunal, as the Tribunal had no copy on record. He could not remember when he had sent it previously to the Tribunal. [NAME_4] said he would give evidence for the respondent, but that he had not submitted a witness statement.

11. The claimant told me that she had two mobile phones and had submitted screenshots from both. One phone is in English and the other in Chinese which made following a thread of a conversation difficult. With the help of the interpreter, I went through each message, so that I and [NAME_4] could understand the message.

12. The claimant says she had sent all her evidence to the respondent’s email address, but that she had been blocked by the respondent. Almost all of her evidence was in the form of screenshots from her mobile phones, the majority of which had come from the respondent. The claimant confirmed that she had served her witness statement late and that her medical evidence (which comprised of two short letters) had not been seen previously by either the respondent or Tribunal.

13. When I queried with [NAME_4] which screenshots he might have already seen he said that he had seen nothing. I mentioned that some of the screenshots had his name on them, at which point he told me that he might be remembering incorrectly.

14. After this exercise of ascertaining what documentary evidence was being submitted by each party, I heard oral and written submissions from each party on the respondent’s application for postponement of the final hearing.

15. I adjourned at 3.15 pm on the first day and advised the parties that we would reconvene at 2pm on the second day, so that [NAME_4] and I could have more time to read the claimant’s witness statement, medical evidence and view the screenshots and I would make my decision on application for postponement when we reconvened. Neither party objected to this course of action.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 5 of 38

16. I also explained to both parties that in the event that the final hearing was postponed, there were distinct elements of the claim that could I could deal with,

17. using the court time already allocated by way of public preliminary hearing, such as identity of claimant, disability, illegality of hearing and the postponed hearing would only apply to the other elements of the claim that had not be dealt with in a preliminary hearing.

18. When I reconvened the hearing on day two, both the claimant and respondent had submitted further emails to the Tribunal overnight. The respondent had emailed further submissions on postponement and an application to deal with identity first. The claimant had submitted more documents she was submitting as evidence and she was seeking to rely on.

19. [NAME_4] also made a complaint regarding the claimant sending him an offensive email overnight. I asked him to send a copy of his complaint to the claimant as he had not copied her into the email he sent to the Tribunal. I explained to both parties the need for them to comply with the overriding obligation to assist the Tribunal and to cooperate with each other. I asked the parties to resist sending emails that were not cooperative, or, of assistance to the Tribunal, and reminded them that the time for them to challenge each other is in cross examination.

Respondent’s application to postpone the final hearing

20. At 5.23 pm on Friday 30 January 2026 [NAME_4] representing the respondent made an application via email for postponement on the grounds that two panel members and a judge were required because: (i) complexity and volume of claims; (ii) conduct of the claimant and procedural fairness; and (iii) interest of justice outweigh delay.

21. The claimant had at 6.30pm on the same day emailed the Tribunal to say she objected to the respondent’s application.

22. I am governed by The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and in particular Rule 32A (2) and can only grant a postponement on less than seven dates notice if: (i) The other party consents; (ii) The application is necessitated by an act or omission by a party or the Tribunal; (iii)Exceptional circumstances apply.

23. [NAME_4] gave written and oral submissions. The respondent’s case is that there are too many documents, new evidence and he can’t tell what’s new evidence, so he needs two months to assess the evidence, this case needs two non-legal members to assess and to ensure a fair process, so that he can have confidence in the outcome. He also mentioned that he was scared and how can he be sure that the evidence is complete.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 6 of 38

24. The respondent provided further written submissions overnight, accepting that the

evidence is mostly screenshots, photographs and scanned pages but says he is unable to verify the documents the documents are not in a systematic order.

25. I noted that the respondent was responsible for completing the bundle of documents (as per Case Management Order dated 17 October 2024) but he has failed to do or engage with the claimant to do this and has not provided any explanation as to why. I considered the further submissions and asked the claimant if she had any further comments.

26. I reminded [NAME_4] that the claimant has in her witness statement has made reference to each document and the claimant, [NAME_4] and l had gone through each document and issues the previous day. [NAME_4] commented that the documents should have been served by post, again I reminded the parties that they had the opportunity to request this at the previous preliminary hearings or at any time before the hearing but chosen not to do so.

27. The claimant had also sent emails late to the Tribunal and confirmed that these are documents which have already been disclosed but are now in a pdf format. I reminded the respondent that he can cross examine the claimant on her evidence.

28. [NAME_4]’s point on procedural fairness, I reminded the parties that the strict rules of evidence of the criminal courts do not apply in this court. The respondent has had ample opportunity to engage in disclosure and exchange but chose not to and missed all of the deadlines in both case management orders, without explanation, which was a prejudice to the claimant. Due to the limited volume of evidence in this case which is predominantly screenshots from the claimant’s mobile phone, I do not find that this prevents a fair trial from taking place.

29. The claimant gave oral submissions and had written previously to the Tribunal objecting to the postponement. She does not agree to postponement, because she says her claim has been ongoing since 2023, there has no compliance with the two case management orders from June and October 2024 by the respondent, she has already provided her evidence, (but she says her email was blocked by the respondent) , there are a normal number of claims, she has suffered all of them, is a victim and never got paid. For someone new to the case she says it would take no more than 2 days to read all of the evidence. I disagreed with this time estimate and considered 4-6 hours as sufficient time.

30. In reaching my decision on the respondent’s application, I considered Rule 74 (1) ( C ) regarding making a costs order and the Presidential Guidance on applying for postponement dated 2013 and in particular:

(i) The degree of prejudice to either side in granting and not granting the postponement;

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 7 of 38

(ii) Whether the parties had any say on the original hearing date; (iii) Whether the case had previously been postponed.

31. I also bore in mind the non compliance by the respondent of the case management orders, for example, no witness statement, no disclosure, no list of documents, no exchange of list of documents, no preparation of bundle and the fact that he appeared to be unprepared for today’s final hearing ie he did not have a copy available to him of the Case Management Order dated 17 October 2024. The respondent confirmed his only document he is seeking to rely on as evidence is a copy of the claimant’s passport which he had now forwarded to the Tribunal.

32. The claimant had submitted late documents but says that the majority of these have previously been submitted to the respondent. The new documents she says are media reports on the respondent’s [COMPANY_20] where she worked, two medical letters and her witness statement.

33. As both parties have submitted late evidence and no organized bundle, I am allowing all documents submitted in the emails in as evidence from both the claimant and respondent. The claimant’s evidence is mainly screenshots of messages which are an exchange of message between the respondent and the claimant.

34. I considered the prejudice to the respondent by not allowing his application. If the case is not postponed then respondent may be deprived of fully answering the case against him and investigating the evidence. The case has been ongoing since 2023 and the respondent has been given the opportunity of amending his defence and confirmed to me that the respondent had chosen not to do so. The respondent’s defence is based on identity of the claimant and illegality of contract.

35. I noted that the respondent has already seen the majority of the evidence and some of it is screenshots of messages that have come from [NAME_4]. In total there is very little documentary evidence to consider, approximately 65 documents, most of which are screenshots of messages.

36. The respondent expressed concerns that how would he know if the claimant’s evidence was complete, but this is not a prejudice to the respondent because the burden of proof is on the claimant in relation to the majority of her claims eg disability, discrimination and of she has not provided sufficient evidence then she may struggle to succeed in her claims.

37. I noted that both the claimant and respondent had been aware of the final hearing date for 16 months now. I finally considered what prejudice there might be to the respondent if I did allow the postponement and had to consider whether a costs order would be appropriate, taking in account all of the circumstances.

38. I then looked at the prejudice to the claimant in allowing a postponement. The

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 8 of 38

claimant would be denied the opportunity of bringing her claim to a timely conclusion. She had complied with some of the case management orders, but not

all. The claimant told me that the respondent blocked her email and was not prepared to exchange documents with her. She has been denied the opportunity in advance to see the respondent’s witness statement, but accepts she only submitted her own late. The claimant also expressed concerns that the respondent company may be closed down if there is a delay.

39. I noted that the respondent had been legally represented at the preliminary hearing on 17 October 2024 and had the benefit of professional legal representation, whereas the claimant has been a litigant in person throughout.

40. Weighing the balance of prejudice between the claimant and the respondent, I find that there would be greater prejudice to the claimant if I granted the respondent’s application to postpone the hearing.

41. I also gave consideration to the Presential Guidance on Panel Composition dated 29 October 2024, which states I must take into account: (i) The views of the parties; (ii) Is an understanding of contemporary workplace norma required that non legal panel members can contribute their experience- often valuable when as assessment of the reasonableness of actions or beliefs is required and the members experience may add significant value to such assessment; (iii) Availability of members to sit.

42. Examples of cases where panel members may add value are – did an employer act reasonably in dismissing employee, was it reasonable to make an adjustment for a disabled person, or where specific knowledge is valuable eg trade union or redundancies.

43. The respondent’s case is that this is a complex claim with numerous complaints. I advised [NAME_4] that it is normal for the Tribunal to deal with a case of this complexity and number of claims with a judge sitting alone.

44. I explained that the list of issues which had been agreed on 17 October 2024 by the parties (each confirmed to me that they did not request any amends to them since they received them) contains issues which require findings of fact, as to whether the events that are the subject matter of the allegations happened as the claimant says they have. They require oral and if available documentary evidence from both parties. The burden of proof is primarily on the claimant to prove her case.

45.The respondent’s defence is a simple one of identity and illegality of contract.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 9 of 38

46. Finally, I considered the overriding objective in the Tribunal Rules, which I read out to the parties. Taking all of the above into consideration, I refused to allow the

respondent’s application to postpone the final hearing.

Further evidence

47. After I gave the oral reasons for my decision for the refusal of the respondent’s application to postpone the hearing, I went through a timetable for the next day. The claimant then told me the documents she had disclosed previously which were all screenshots were only related to the issues of identity and disability and that she had other evidence to submit.

48. When I questioned the claimant on what documents there might be, (bearing in mind the exercise we went through on day 1) and had the respondent seen them, she explained that “everything” had previously been sent to the respondent, but because she thinks he had blocked her.

49. Because the claimant received no communication from the respondent, she contacted the Tribunal on 19 May 2025 to say she had no response from respondent. The Tribunal wrote to the respondent to give a strike out warning for failure to comply with the Case Management Order of 17 October 2024. The respondent replied asking for a copy of the case management order and for an extension of time to comply which was granted. However, the respondent had still not complied with the case management orders by the start of this hearing.

50. I reminded the claimant that the Tribunal had not received any bundle of documents prior to the start of this hearing, which was why she and I had gone through the agreed list of issues as per case management order dated 17 October 2024 and I had asked her to identify what evidence she was relying on for each element of her claim. From this exercise on day 1, we identified approximately 65 documents (including the respondent’s copy passport) and which items had been seen by the respondent and the Tribunal and what needed to be sent to the respondent and the Tribunal.

51. I explained to both parties that there had been two preliminary hearings to get this matter ready for a final hearing, if the claimant was not ready because she had not prepared and disclosed all of her evidence that she wanted to rely on, then she was at liberty to do and can request a postponement now, which given the respondent’s view was very likely to be agreed.

52. If the claimant wanted to make an application for postponement, I again advised both parties that there were distinct elements of the claim that could be dealt with by me using the court time already allocated by way of public preliminary hearing, such as identity of claimant, disability, illegality of hearing and the postponed

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 10 of 38

hearing would only apply to the other elements of the claim that had not be dealt with in a preliminary hearing.

53. To assist the Tribunal and the parties, I asked the claimant to draft a complete list of documents containing all the evidence that she was seeking to rely on in her claims. By doing this I explained I could understand what had already been disclosed and seen by both [NAME_4] and the Tribunal. The claimant said she understood and agreed to do this.

54. On the third day of the hearing the claimant confirmed that she had prepared a list of the documents that she was relying on and we went through the list on the CVP screen. There were 64 documents in total from her. There was one for [NAME_4], making a total of 65.

55. I asked the claimant to email her list to the Tribunal and [NAME_4]. The claimant then mentioned that she had other supporting evidence that is not in the list we had just been through.

56. I accept that the Tribunal environment is stressful for all parties, but I had to express my concern in way the claimant was continuing to drip feed documents that neither the respondent nor the Tribunal had seen, when she had already been given the opportunity to disclose all documents. We had been through both the list of issues and the list of documents, and they both came to 64 documents for her. I explained that I must consider whether a fair trial was still possible and as part of this process I needed to canvass the views of both the claimant and respondent.

57. I explained to the claimant that she needs to decide if she is happy to proceed to the final hearing on all elements of her claim with only her 64 documents. I explained that she would be asked questions on her witness statement and on all elements of her claim. [NAME_4] and I would both be asking her questions. I suggested she seek legal advice and asked the interpreter to also explain, and I asked same question again in a slightly different way to reassure myself that the claimant understood. The claimant confirmed that she did and I was confident that she fully understood the situation. She told me that she did not want to postpone. I said I wanted her to make sure she was happy to proceed and I would give her time to make her decision and she needed to be comfortable that sufficient evidence has been submitted to prove all of her allegations.

58. She asked for one hour and I agreed to adjourn from 11.40am to 2.15pm to accommodate this. When I sought [NAME_4]’s views he said the Tribunal was being patient and kind and did not object to this course of action.

59. When the Tribunal reconvened, the claimant confirmed that she wanted to go ahead with the final hearing and did not want to postpone. I was satisfied that a fair hearing was still possible taking into account all of the circumstances.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 11 of 38

Final Hearing

60. The final hearing commenced on day three in the afternoon, and I agreed a timetable with the parties and to deal with the issue of the claimant’s identity first.

61. I confirmed with both the claimant and the respondent that the list of issues that they wanted me to address was still as set out in the Case Management Order dated 17 October 2024 and they confirmed yes and that neither of them had requested amendments or wanted to make any amendments now.

62. The claimant and [NAME_4] both gave evidence, were cross-examined by the other, answered my questions and both gave final written submissions. There were no other witnesses called or witness statements submitted by either party.

63. I reminded both parties continually during the hearing of the need for them to comply with the overriding objective to assist each other and the Tribunal.

Respondent’s application on the claimant’s identity

64. The respondent’s position was that the claimant was not who she said she was because the name on the passport copy they had was not the same name as the ET1. The respondent made an application after the first day at 22.30 hrs via email asking that the Tribunal deal with the matter of the claimant’s identity first.

65. I noted that at the first preliminary hearing on 14 June 2024 the respondent had contested the claimant’s identity and that the claimant’s employment was illegal, and that she cannot present some or any of her claims to the Tribunal on that basis. A further preliminary hearing was listed for 17 October 2024 to deal with the issue of the claimant’s identity. The respondent was ordered to provide a witness statement, attaching any relevant documents, addressing solely this issue, no later than 14 days before the hearing in October. The claimant was ordered to make a witness statement in response, to which any relevant documents must be attached, no later than 7 days before the hearing. None of these orders had been complied with.

66. I reminded the respondent that looking though the court documents, the respondent’s solicitor who represented the respondent at the second preliminary hearing on 17 October 2024 had conceded the identity of the claimant in an email to the Tribunal on 14 October 2024, which had been accepted by the Tribunal. [NAME_4] could offer no explanation as to why he was now taking the position he was.

67. I noted that the preliminary hearing on 17 October 2024 was an in person hearing at the respondent’s request (via email 24 June 2024), so that [NAME_4] could confirm

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 12 of 38

the identity of the claimant, but he did not attend the hearing. The purpose of the preliminary hearing on 17 October had been to specifically deal with the identity

issue of the claimant, which having been conceded prior to the hearing, the time was instead used to discuss the list of issues, both parties given opportunity to amend their claim/grounds of resistance, agreed exchange and disclosure of documents, and fixed the hearing date, which at that time was over 2 years away.

68. Accordingly, I refused the respondent’s application as the claimant’s identity had previously been conceded by the respondent over 2 years ago.

69. [NAME_4] commented that he did not recognize the person who was on the video screen at all and had never seen her before and could not comment as he had no knowledge of any of the events she said happened. I reminded [NAME_4] that he was here as the only representative of the respondent and had to put questions to the claimant about her evidence and especially if she was a complete stranger to understand she would be bringing such a claim.

70. I advised that to assist the parties, who were both representing themselves, that I would go through each issue in the order they are set out in the case management order dated 17 October 2024, so they knew what questions the Tribunal would be making a decision on and where they should be directing their focus.

Findings of Fact

71. The claimant must establish her claims on a balance of probabilities.

72. Not all matters that the parties told me about are recorded in the findings of fact below, as I have limited them to the points that are relevant to the legal issues.

73. On the balance of probabilities, I made the following findings of fact on the basis of the material before me, taking into account contemporaneous documents, where they exist and the conduct of those concerned at the time. I resolved such conflicts of evidence as arose on the balance of probabilities, taking into account my assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the consistency of their evidence with the surrounding facts.

74. The claimant on the CVP screen is the same person as the one in the passport copy provided by the respondent, which was sent to the Tribunal by [NAME_4]. I could see that that it was the same person, but despite this [NAME_4] continued to deny that he knew the claimant throughout the hearing, but could offer no explanation as to why the claimant, if she were a stranger, would bring such claims against the respondent.

75. The claimant uses the following names: [NAME_21] (the name given by her parents

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 13 of 38

in Malaysia where surname comes before first name for Malaysian Chinese.) The claimant’s Malaysian passport is in the name of [NAME_21]. In Malaysia she is

known as [NAME_23]. [NAME_24] being her nickname. In the UK her nickname is [NAME_25] and she is often referred to as [NAME_26]. But she is also known as [NAME_27] or [NAME_23] in the UK.

76. The claimant’s ET1 is in the name of [NAME_26]. Screenshots of messages between [NAME_8] and the claimant show the name [NAME_25] [NAME_23].

77. The GP Letter from [NAME_28] is in the name of [NAME_22]. The [COMPANY_29] is in the name of [NAME_23]

78. The Malaysian naming conventions as explained by the claimant, which was confirmed in the Equal Treatment Bench Book.

79. The identity of the claimant had already been conceded by the respondent’s solicitor on 14 October 2024 via email, but despite this [NAME_4] continued to state that he did not know the claimant. I have drawn an inference from this.

80. The claimant was contacted by [NAME_4] in response to an advert placed by the claimant on [NAME_30],via WeChat screenshot dated 23 March 2023 between claimant and [NAME_4].The screenshot messages submitted in evidence are between the claimant and [NAME_16] who the claimant says is [NAME_4]. [NAME_4] disputes all of the evidence and says this is not him, but could not offer any explanation as to why the claimant would fabricate these messages. The claimant’s witness statement, oral evidence and screenshots have all been consistently referred to by the claimant.

81. On 28 March 2023 [NAME_4] contacted the claimant ( screenshot message 08.43 in Chinese and translated by [NAME_6]), and offered the following terms: “salary is £28,000.00, probation period of 3 months, after that salary is £30,000.00 and reviewed annually, 5 days a week, 8 hours per day, we follow law re annual leave and no additional payment for bank holidays”.

82. On same day at 08:44 the parties discussed “work permit after one month if both parties feel it is suitable to apply”. [NAME_4] states that it is not responsible for any fee or costs, solicitor’s costs, government costs of work visa.

83. The claimant then asked if the respondent was responsible for Certificate of Sponsorship (“COS”) fee. [NAME_4] says that accommodation can be provided for 500-700 per month for an ensuite or single room, or the claimant can find her own accommodation. In Chinese on phone and translated by [NAME_6] “before the work permit we will pay in cash but we , it won’t be too long. We need to start procedure for getting a work permit.”

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 14 of 38

84. On 13 May 2023 screenshot message at 09:55 titled draft offer letter,, showing the

terms that had been agreed regarding employment.. (translated by interpreter) “Title: Assistant Manager,Tasks: you are expected to act as personal assistant to the Managing Director, in charge of everything of the company operation, and in her absence such as holidays to lead the team to run the [COMPANY_20]. In the beginning stage , you are supposed to handle reception and accounting. The next would be restaurant operation and house keeping etc.Training: the company will provide every training where needed…Salary: GBP 30K per year during probation.”

85. The respondent offered accommodation, and they agreed on a single room because the claimant says that her living style is simple and as long as it is convenient for work she will accept it.

86. The process for completing the contract was that after [NAME_4] has answered the claimant’s questions, he would send the offer letter to his manager, complete with any amendments requested by the claimant and that this will be the final contract.

87. There was no other formal job description, no other formal offer letter that required signing by either the respondent or claimant. There was no formal contract of employment terms that had been given to the claimant or signed by the claimant.

88. The claimant never received any pay slip or wages, PAYE code or National Insurance number, which was confirmed by the claimant when questioned by [NAME_4].

89. No evidence was submitted by the respondent to show that they used formal contacts of employment, any formal policies or processes, conducted any right to work checks and I have drawn a negative inference from this.

90. The respondent provided free food to its employees, confirmed by respondent in oral evidence, although he told me that it is not stated in contract.

91. [NAME_4] told me that the normal terms that would be discussed with any employee by the respondent were: position, hourly rate of pay, holidays and especially that bank holidays are paid at normal rate, brief description of tasks. Accommodation was not free and the respondent would charge for it.

92. In the messages from [NAME_16], he states that “after probation you may expect to sign a formal labor contract with company. Working hours before work visa: to be discussed with managing director for separate arrangement”. I find that [NAME_4] did contact the claimant and offered her employment at the [COMPANY_20] via social media messaging app.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 15 of 38

93. On the 21 May 2023 the claimant met with [NAME_4] at his house in the Lake District and she met [NAME_8] the next day.

94. [NAME_4] is a statutory director and majority shareholder in the respondent.

95. [NAME_8] (“[NAME_31]”) was the Managing Director of the respondent.

96. The Respondent owned and ran a [COMPANY_20] known as the [COMPANY_32], [ADDRESS], Ambleside, Lake District LA22 and annex building the Log House (“[COMPANY_20]”) with approximately 32 rooms and 11 staff.

97. The respondent employed staff of various nationalities, Polish, Latvian, Spanish, and Chinese. The claimant was the only Malaysian.

98. The claimant’s employment commenced with the respondent on 21 May 2023 as a Financial Manager /Receptionist and ended on 27 June 2023. A period of 36 days.

99. In the screenshots of the work rotas provided by the claimant it shows that the claimant’s job title is that of a manager.

100.The claimant was a member of the respondent’s [NAME_34]. The respondent communicated with its employees via various [NAME_34]. “The [NAME_33]” [COMPANY_35] was set up on 15 May 2021 and the claimant was invited to join on 21 May 2023 so that she could access her rota.

101.There were other [NAME_34] such as Housekeeping and Reception.

102.No explanation was given by respondent as to why or how the claimant would have access to these screenshots, whatapp groups or be named on the work rotas.

103.The working shifts at the [COMPANY_20] were: day shift was 8am to 3pm, night shift 5pm until 11pm.

104.During the claimant’s employment at the [COMPANY_20], she worked mostly night shifts.

105.The respondent arranged the claimant’s accommodation at [NAME_36], Ambleside. On the 26 June 2023 the claimant and other staff were required at short notice to vacate [NAME_36] and move to another property in Kendal.

106.The claimant did not want to move to Kendal and arranged her own accommodation, but it was not available on the 26 June 2023.

107.[NAME_31] sent a message to the claimant on 27 June 2023 dismissing her.

108.The claimant entered the UK on a visitor’s visa and did not have a skilled workers

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 16 of 38

visa.

109.The respondent kept copy passports of all its employees, as confirmed by [NAME_4] in oral evidence.

110. [NAME_4] could not explain what right to work checks were required, but kept copy passports as he knew “something was required”.

Witness Evidence of the respondent

111.I did not find [NAME_4] a credible witness, for reasons explained below.

112. [NAME_4] refused to accept that the respondent via their solicitors had conceded the claimant ‘sidentity in October 2024 “I am now instructed that the respondent will no longer pursue an argument that the person who is pursuing this claim is not the claimant “ yet in an email to the Tribunal dated 2 February 2026 [NAME_4] states that the respondent manager had “dealings exclusively with the individual identified by the submitted passport” and “we do not recognize or accept any claim brought by any other persons purporting to act in relation to this matter”.

113.[NAME_4] refused to accept the different naming conventions when explained to him. The claimant had explained Malaysian naming conventions and the reason for different uses of her name which I accepted. I was confident that the person on the CVP screen was the same person as the passport copy submitted by [NAME_4] at the start of the hearing. When I asked him why he was persisting in disputing the claimant’s identity [NAME_4] told me that he had a “gut feeling” that the person on the video screen did not look like the person in the passport. When I explained to [NAME_4] that I was satisfied that it was the same person he was adamant that his gut feeling could not be ignored. I do not accept this as a reasonable explanation and have drawn an inference from his continual denial about the claimant’s identity.

114.[NAME_4] stated numerous times that he denied all of the evidence presented by the claimant and wanted the court to verify it. I reminded [NAME_4] that the process was for the respondent and claimant to exchange and challenge each other’s evidence, as provided for in the process set out in the case management orders dated 17 October 2024, but he had not done this. I reminded him that he could cross examine the claimant during the hearing.

115.I find that the reasons given by [NAME_4] for not complying with the Tribunal case management orders undermined his credibility as a witness.

116.The email address of the respondent has not changed since the ET3, yet the respondent and specifically [NAME_4] has consistently denied receiving any documents from the claimant and occasionally the Tribunal.

117.When I asked [NAME_4] about what he had done to prepare for this hearing he told me that he had not done anything. I noted that in an email to the Tribunal dated

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 17 of 38

3 November 2025 he had asked for more time to comply with case management

orders and in an email to the Tribunal dated 3 February 2025, [NAME_4] stated “the Respondent remains willing to assist the Tribunal on procedural matters, case management issues, and directions relating to proper service and disclosure of evidence”. The respondent did not call any witnesses, submit any witness statement or provide any documentary evidence other than a copy of the claimant’s passport. I noted that there was an inconsistency between [NAME_4] words and actions.

118.During the hearing [NAME_4]’s most frequent answer to questions was “I cant remember, I can’t comment on things that didn’t happen.” He told me that he relied on his gut feelings. By way of example when I asked him to look at the claimant on the video screen during the hearing he told me that the claimant (who he denied knowing or having met before) could not be disabled. When I queried as to how he could know this when the claimant was only visible from the neck upwards he said he had a gut feeling about it and that she looked stronger than him.

119. During the hearing [NAME_4] often sat with his head down and in his arms. He told me that he was tired from listening to the claimant’s stories and that she talked far too much. I noted his behaviour but did not draw any inferences from it. I reminded him of his duty to assist the Tribunal.

120.[NAME_4] was reluctant to answer questions directly and only cross examined the claimant briefly. He was prepared to offer his opinion and observation on matters instead. I explained that cross examination was his opportunity to put the respondent’s position to the claimant and challenge what she was alleging. I did not draw any inferences from this behaviour.

121.[NAME_4] told me how upset he was at the allegations the claimant had made upon him and the business and that it made him emotional. I asked him what he had done if, as is his case, an unknown person was making such allegations against him and his business. [NAME_4] confirmed that he had taken no action in asking the claimant to cease making the allegations.

Witness evidence of claimant

122.The claimant mostly gave oral evidence that was consistent with her witness statement. However, at times I found that claimant contradicted her own evidence eg she told me that no male worker had ever been dismissed but also mentioned that [NAME_37], a male, had been dismissed. She told me that the respondent only recruited overseas female workers and that [NAME_38], a male was an illegal immigrant.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 18 of 38

The Law

Illegality 123.If a contract is tainted with illegality, in one form or another, it may not be possible to enforce some or all the rights which would otherwise be available. There are three situations where illegality may arise:

(i) the employment was directly prohibited by legislation;

(ii) If the purpose of object of the contract involves criminality, immorality it will be unenforceable as being contrary to public policy. Such contracts may not be enforceable if the activities do not form a term of the contract;

(iii) There is Illegality in performance. This arises where the contract is legal on the face of it but in some way, the performance is illegal. Most commonly, in an employment situation, this may involve some kind of tax fraud.

124.Two conditions must be satisfied when considering if a party will be prevented from enforcing a contract which is performed illegally:

(i) The party must, in some way know of the illegality; and (ii) Must also participate in the illegality.

125.The Tribunal is reminded that in [NAME_39] v [COMPANY_40] 2001 ICR 99 [NAME_42] LJ said at paragraph 38:

“In cases where the contract of employment is neither entered into for an illegal purpose nor prohibited by statute, the illegal performance of the contract will not render the contract unenforceable unless in addition to knowledge of the facts which make the performance illegal the employee actively participates in the illegal performance. It is a question of fact in each case whether there has been a sufficient degree of participation by the employee.”

126.The principle established in [NAME_43] which is confirmed by the EHRC Employment Code is that “the face that a contract of employment is illegal or performed in an illegal manner will not exclude an Employment Tribunal having jurisdiction to hear an employment related discrimination claim. This will be so provided that the discrimination is not inextricably linked to illegal conduct ( so as to make an award of compensation appear to condone that conduct.” (para 10.5)

127.In Newland v Simons & Willer (Hairdressers) Ltd [1981] IRLR 359 the employee had claimed unfair dismissal in circumstances where the Tribunal had held that the employee knew or ought to have known that her employer had failed to pay tax and National Insurance contributions in respect of her

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 19 of 38

wages. The EAT held that where both the employer and the employee knowingly commit illegality by way of a fraud on the [NAME_44] in the payment and receipt of employee’s remuneration under a contract of employment, the contract was turned into one prohibited by statute or common law and the employee was precluded from enforcing any employment rights which he might otherwise have against the employer. The essential question was whether the employee knowingly had been a party to a deception on the [NAME_44].

128.The leading non-employment case is that of Patel v Mirza [2016] UKCS 42 in which [NAME_45] at para 99 noted “Looking behind the maxims, there are two broad discernible policy reasons for the common law doctrine of illegality as a defence to a civil claim. One is that a person should not be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing. The other, linked, consideration is that the law should be coherent and not self- defeating, condoning illegality by giving with the left hand what it takes with the right hand.”

129.At para 120, it was further held: “The essential rationale of the illegality doctrine is that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system (or, possibly, certain aspects of public morality, the boundaries of which have never been made entirely clear and which do not arise for consideration in this case). In assessing whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, it is necessary a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim, b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact and c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts. Within that framework, various factors may be relevant, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the court is free to decide a case in an undisciplined way. The public interest is best served by a principled and transparent assessment of the considerations identified, rather by than the application of a formal approach capable of producing results which may appear arbitrary, unjust or disproportionate.”

130.There are specific employment authorities covering illegality. In Colen v Celebran [2003] EWCA Civ 1676 [2004] IRLR 210 At para 24 Waller LJ summarised the previous authorities and held:

“The above passages demonstrate that an analysis needs to be done as to what the party's intentions were from time to time. If the contract was unlawful at its formation or if there was an intention to perform the contract unlawfully as at

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 20 of 38

the date of the contract, then the contract will be unenforceable. If at the date of the contract the contract was perfectly lawful and it was intended to perform it

lawfully, the effect of some act of illegal performance is not automatically to render the contract unenforceable. If the contract is ultimately performed illegally and the party seeking to enforce takes part in the illegality, that may render the contract unenforceable at his instigation. But not every act of illegality in performance even participated in by the enforcer, will have that effect. If the person seeking to enforce the contract has to rely on his illegal action in order to succeed then the court will not assist him. But if he does not have to do so, then in my view the question is whether the method of performance chosen and the degree of participation in that illegal performance is such as to "turn the contract into an illegal contract" (see the dictum of [NAME_47] LJ in B and B Viennese Fashions v Losane [1952] 1 All E R 909 at 913 cited by [NAME_48] LJ in Ashmore Benson Ltd VA v Dawson Ltd [1973] 1 WLR 828 at 836, and the language of para 34 in [NAME_39] quoted above). The decisions cited in the paragraphs 30 and 31 in [NAME_39] reflect, I suggest, the principle that not every illegality in performance will turn a contract into an illegal contract; on one side of the line appears to be [COMPANY_70] v [COMPANY_49] and on the other St John Shipping Corporation v Joseph Rank Ltd [1957] 1 QB 267. In the latter case the court was concerned with a breach of statute, and performance in breach of that statute. The question in relation to performance, it asked itself, was whether the statute intended to prohibit the type of contract sued on, and held on the construction of the relevant statute that it did not. In the former case the citation by [NAME_48] LJ of the dictum of [NAME_47] LJ suggests that where illegality by virtue of the common law is concerned the question is whether the common law would say that a contract has by its illegal performance been turned into an illegal contract. Of course much may depend on the question whether the party seeking to enforce the contract needs to rely on the illegal performance in order to succeed.”

131. Hounga v Allen [2014] IRLR 811 identified that there was a different approach between employment rights and Equality Act claims. Equality Act claims are founded in tort. The case before me does involve a tort, namely disability, race and sex discrimination. The Supreme Court held that a domestic worker could claim race discrimination, despite working illegally in the UK. [NAME_50] who was Nigerian, came to the UK at the age of 14 to work as au pair for [NAME_51]. [NAME_50] gained entry by providing a false identity on a visitor’s visa that did not give her permission to work and which gave her no right to remain in the UK. She suffered serious physical abuse at work, and was eventually dismissed and evicted from the family home. The court noted that while there was uncertainty as to the legal formulation for precluding claims for statutory tort of unlawful discrimination on the basis of illegality, there must be at least be a sufficiently close connection between the illegality and the facts giving rise to the claim before any question arises of refusing relief on that basis. The illegal contract provided no more than the context in which [NAME_51] perpetrated the acts of abuse and [NAME_50]’s appeal

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 21 of 38

should be allowed as a matter of public policy.[NAME_50] was a victim of trafficking for

forced labour and public policy against human trafficking outweighed any public policy consideration in support of applying the defence of illegality.

Disability 132. Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 states: (1) “A person (P) has a disability if- (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long term adverse effect on P’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities.”

133.Section 212 Equality Act defines “substantial” as being more than minor or trivial.

134.Paragraph 5 of Scheule 1 to the Equality Act 2010 states: (1) “An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability f the person concerned to carry out normal day to day activities if: (a ) measures are being taken to correct it, and

(b) but for that, it would be likely to have that effect.

(2) Measures includes, in particular, medical treatment and the use of a prosthesis or other aid.”

135. In Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] I.C.R. 302, Morison J (President) provided some guidance on the proper approach for the Tribunal to adopt when applying the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Morison J set out four questions to be answered by the Tribunal in order. This four stage test approach was approved more recently by the Court of Appeal in Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1694, where Singh LJ listed the questions as: (a) Was there an impairment; (b) What were its adverse effects on normal day to day activities; (c) Were they more than minor or trivial; (d) Was there a real possibility that they would continue for more than 12 months.

136. Singh LJ emphasized that these questions are for the Tribunal; although it may be assisted by medical evidence, it is not bound by any opinion expressed.

Discrimination arising from disability 137.Discrimination arising from disability is found in section 15 Equality Act 2010:

(1) “A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if –

(a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 22 of 38

B’s disability and

(b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim,

138.Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.”

139.The approach to be taken in section 15 claims is set out in [NAME_52] v NHS England 2016 IRLR 170 (EAT) by Simler P at paragraph 31. This case also addresses the burden of proof in section 15 cases. Under section 136, once a claimant has proved facts from which a Tribunal could conclude that an unlawful act of discrimination has taken place, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a non-discriminatory explanation. In order to prove a prima facie case of discrimination and shift the burden to the employer, the claimant needs to show: (i) that he or she has been subjected to unfavourable treatment; (ii) that he or she is disabled and that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of this; (iii) A link between the disability and the ‘something’ that is said to be the ground for the unfavourable treatment; (iv) some evidence from which it can be inferred that the ‘something’ was the reason for the treatment.

140.If the prima facie case is established and the burden shifts, the employer can defeat the claim by proving either: that the reason or reasons for the unfavourable treatment was not in fact the ‘something’ that is relied upon as arising in consequence of the claimant’s disability; or that the treatment, although meted out because of something arising in consequence of the disability, was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

141.The “something” that causes the unfavourable treatment need not be the main or sole reason but must have at least a significant or more than trivial influence on the unfavourable treatment and so amount to an effective reason for or cause of it (judgment paragraph 31b).

Direct Discrimination 142.Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that “A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”.

143.Under section 23(1), where a comparison is made, there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case. It is possible to compare with an actual or hypothetical comparator.

144. In order to find discrimination has occurred, there must be some evidential basis on which the Tribunal can infer that the claimant’s protected characteristic is the

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 23 of 38

cause of the less favourable treatment. The Tribunal can take into account a number of factors including an examination of circumstantial evidence.

145.The Tribunal must consider whether the fact that the claimant had the relevant protected characteristic had a significant (or more than trivial) influence on the mind of the decision maker. The influence can be conscious or unconscious. It need not be the main or sole reason, but must have a significant (i.e. not trivial) influence and so amount to an effective reason for the cause of the treatment.

146.In [NAME_53] v [NAME_54] of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, Lord Rodger at paragraph 125, intimated that the key to a claim of direct discrimination will, generally be the determination of the reason for the treatment in issue: whether it was “because of” the relevant protected characteristic.

147. In determining claims under the Equality Act , the burden of proof operates as provided by section 136: “(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred.

(3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision”

148.The approach to be adopted is as laid down in [COMPANY_55] v [NAME_56]; Chamberlin Solicitors v [NAME_57]; Brunel University v Webster [2005] EWCA Civ 142, [2005] ICR 931 (largely endorsing the principles set out in Barton v Investec Securities Ltd [2003] ICR 1205 EAT) and approved by the Supreme Court in Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33. In short, to the extent that the Tribunal is satisfied (on a balance of probabilities) that the claimant has established facts from which it could, in the absence of an adequate explanation, conclude that the respondent had committed an act of unlawful discrimination (having regard to all the evidence, and drawing such inferences as are legitimate from its primary findings of fact at that preliminary stage), it will be for the respondent to prove (again, on the balance of probabilities) that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of the relevant protected characteristic. In discharging this burden, a respondent would normally be expected to adduce cogent evidence that the relevant protected characteristic was not the reason for the treatment in question.

149. In considering whether the claimant has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Tribunal must have regard to all the evidence, not just that adduced by the claimant ([NAME_58]).

150.In the case of Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 439 the Court of Appeal considered whether, for the purposes of establishing whether direct

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 24 of 38

discrimination has taken place, a tribunal should consider the mental processes of those employees who have significantly influenced the alleged discriminatory outcome, or only those of the actual decision-maker. [ADDRESS] of Appeal stated, “…it is a fundamental principle of the discrimination legislation that liability can only attach to an employer where an individual employee or agent for whose act he is responsible has done an act which satisfies the definition of discrimination. That means that the individual employee who did the relevant act (that is, effected the dismissal) must have been motivated by the protected characteristic.”

Decision Illegality – issue 1.1

151.I found the claimant’s evidence contradictory at times and tried to resolve this by reference to other documentary evidence, where possible. The claimant told me in her oral evidence that she did not have a visa that allowed her to work in the UK. She came to the UK on a visitor’s visa from [NAME_59]. The claimant told me in her oral evidence that she knew she needed a work visa and that she did not have one during May 2023, when she was working at the [COMPANY_20].

152.When I questioned the claimant as to what she thought her status was whilst she was working at the [COMPANY_20] she said, “she wasn’t sure”. I find this at odds with the

previous answers given by the claimant in that she knew she needed a work visa to work in the UK, that she couldn’t work on a visitor’s visa and she did not possess a skilled workers visa.

153.The claimant also stated in the document “further information to be provided by the claimant Annex A” in response to the question did the claimant have the right to work in the UK when she was employed by the respondent, she answers “No”.

154.I noted that this was not the claimant’s first job she had previously been employed as a Tax Consultant at [NAME_60] and was educated to university degree standard. She had also recently run her own restaurant business in China, which had closed due to the covid pandemic. She told me that she was aware of the need for a skilled workers visa, because she had been looking at other roles for work in the UK. She also told me that she had looked on the [NAME_61] website. She accepts that she may have been naïve in her dealings with [NAME_4].

155.Whilst at the [COMPANY_20] the claimant kept possession of her passport at all times and was concerned that [NAME_4] was trying to get hold of her passport for illegal reasons.

156.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the claimant did not have the right to work in the UK at the time she was working for the respondent in May and June 2023 and the claimant was fully aware of her visa status.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 25 of 38

Illegality – issue 1.2 and 1.3

157.The respondent was aware that the claimant did not have a work visa that gave her the right to work in the UK. [NAME_4] confirmed that he had not organized any COS or work visa for the claimant.

158.The respondent told me he had previously employed people who needed a work visa.

159.The claimant provided screenshots of messages that show she had told [NAME_4] that she did not have a work visa. The claimant says that she agreed to travel to UK only after [NAME_4] confirmed in WeChat that he would apply for work visa for her but he would not pay for COS. [NAME_4] disputed these messages but could not explain why or how the claimant came to have them.

160.[NAME_4] could not explain what right to work checks the respondent would carry out. He told me a manager would do that but he had no knowledge of what exactly was done. The respondent could not confirm that it carried out any right to work checks. [NAME_4] told me that this task was delegated to [NAME_31] and he did not know what specific checks were needed but “knew something “ was required.

161.I find that the respondent knew that the claimant did not have a work visa that allowed her to work in the UK and that he knew this before the claimant arrived in the UK.

Illegality – issue 1.4

162.Having found that both the claimant and the respondent knew of the illegality of the employment contract from the outset,I then considered to what extent had each party participated in the illegality.

163.The claimant’s case is that she was “scammed” into coming to the UK by the respondent. She says that prior to starting her employment with the respondent she made clear to the respondent what her visa status was and it was discussed in screenshots of messages between the claimant and [NAME_4].

164.In the [COMPANY_35] message screenshots between [NAME_4] and the claimant, she asked [NAME_4] if he can apply for work permit (08.44 message). The claimant told me that she asked [NAME_4] three times about her work visa and that he had told her she could apply from UK for her skilled workers visa . She says that the respondent urged her to use the respondent’s solicitor. The claimant says that [NAME_4] told her that she had to pay for her COS application, which the claimant says she later found out was untrue and that the respondent had to pay for the COS fee as they were the work sponsor.

165.Although there is mention of a probationary period in the messages, this does not change the fact that the claimant was on a visitor visa at that time and knew that, probationary period or not, she had no legal right to work in the UK.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 26 of 38

166.Prior to accepting the offer of employment with the respondent, the claimant told me that she had made some enquiries on [NAME_61] website regarding her need for a

work visa and also had experience of dealing with other employers who had made job offers to her at the same time as the respondent. She admitted that she had been naïve when dealing with [NAME_4] but felt she couldn’t challenge him as she needed her skilled person’s work visa. I find that the claimant knew that she did not have a skilled workers visa and that this had to be applied for from Malaysia and had participated in the illegality from the outset.

167.After the initial meeting in person with [NAME_4] in May 2023, the claimant told me that he refused to talk to her about her work visa and said it was [NAME_31] who was dealing with it.

168. Whilst she was working at the [COMPANY_20] the claimant told me that that she knew she had to apply for COS and skilled workers visa from Malaysia, but the solicitor that [NAME_4] had recommended told her that she could apply from the UK and she was struggling to get time off. The claimant told me that [NAME_31] was away on holidays a lot, and the claimant could not leave her work because “they kept putting me on shifts”. She had concerns about what she was being told and hired her own solicitor in London in early June.

169.The claimant provided a screenshot of a new article that showed that the respondent had been fined £10,000.00 on 29 April 2024 for failing to conduct right to work checks in January 2024 and employing illegal workers and mentioned that there had been an enforcement visit in April 2024.

170.The screenshot messages show that [NAME_4] had misrepresented the visa situation to the claimant in advising that she could apply from the UK and did not have to pay for her COS application. I find that he had participated in the illegality and to a greater extent than the claimant, as the content of his messages were untrue.

171.[NAME_4] told me in his oral evidence that he did not carry out or ask anyone else to carry out an audit of what right to work checks were done to ensure that the respondent had conducted right to work checks correctly. I have drawn an inference from his lack of knowledge and evidence.

172.Where a contract is prohibited by statute, a claimant will struggle to enforce any of their employment rights. This severe rule can only be circumvented in exceptional circumstances as per [NAME_50] v [NAME_51].

173.Here the supreme court allowed an illegal worker to bring a discrimination claim . The Supreme Court held that there was no inextricable link between the illegality and the claim. It also held that there was a countervailing public policy, namely the protection of victims of trafficking of which [NAME_50] was one.

174.I noted that the claimant refers to this case in her witness statement but the facts are materially different in the claimant’s case in that: the claimant is not a young girl, but a well-educated woman who had previous experience as a consultant and

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 27 of 38

owner of her business; she took the role of financial manager with the respondent, the claimant did not suffer serious prolonged physical abuse; the claimant was asked to do housekeeping duties which she did initially, but then refused, she was not in forced labour; the claimant had instructed her own solicitor to help with her workers visa by early June 2023.

175.I considered whether there was a public policy such as human trafficking, that would outweigh any public policy consideration in support of applying the defence of illegality and found on consideration of all the circumstances there was not.

176. I noted that the claimant, although aware of her visa status, had been honest with the respondent about it and had placed some reliance on the respondent’s assurances that the respondent would organize her worker’s visa. By contrast the respondent had misled the claimant with untrue statements to encourage her to accept the offer of employment. I accept that the claimant had chased the respondent and could not compel them to change their conduct. She eventually sought legal advice.

177.Following the principle established in [NAME_43] I went on to consider whether the alleged discrimination, taking all of the facts into consideration, was inextricably linked to illegal conduct. Whilst the employment of the claimant gave rise to a practical opportunity for the alleged acts of discrimination to be committed, I find that the allegations of disability, race and sex discrimination were not inextricably linked to illegal conduct.

178.Taking of the above into consideration I find that the claimants’ employment contract is tainted by illegality and accordingly the claims which rely on a contract of employment, namely automatic unfair dismissal, breach of contract notice pay, arrears of unpaid wages and holiday pay must fail and are dismissed.

179.I find that the claims which are based on tort, unlawful discrimination, disability (with the exception of dismissal), race and sex discrimination can proceed as they are not inextricably linked to the illegal conduct.

Disability – issue 3.1

180.The claimant has suffered with Asthma since she was 5 years old and continues to suffer with it. She has been subscribed one item of medication, an inhaler Clenil 100mg to take daily. She told me in her oral evidence that she only takes her medication 2-3 times a week, because she does not want to become addicted to it. She told me that her condition is well managed, even though she is not taking her medication as directed.

181.The claimant described her asthma to me as medium to severe but did not provide any medical evidence to support the severity of her asthma. The claimant did not submit her medical records or complete the impact statement as ordered in the Case Management Order dated 17 October 2024, so I went through the impact statement questions orally with the claimant, during the hearing.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 28 of 38

182.In her first week at the [COMPANY_20], the claimant says she had no housekeeping duties and therefore had no problems with her asthma. During her second week, she began undertaking housekeeping duties which involved coming into contact with her triggers such as feather pillows, feather duvets, cleaning chemicals. Her duties included carrying feather pillows and duvets, clearing dust, changing bedding, and using strong chemicals to clean. She told me that her airways would become blocked when she came into contact with her triggers and she would find it difficult to breathe. This meant that she increased the use of her inhaler up to 5 times a week.

183.In her third week at the [COMPANY_20], after a night shift, on the 30 May 2023 ,she suffered an asthma attack. Her inhaler did not work, but she did not attend hospital, her then boyfriend gave her some Chinese medicine which she took. She asked the respondent for sick leave but this was denied. The claimant told me that she also had to do bar work which exposed her to another of her asthma triggers, alcohol fumes.

184.The respondent denied that the claimant suffered with any disability. [NAME_4] told me that the claimant “did not look disabled” and if fact looked stronger then him, and he could tell this from looking at the claimant on the CVP screen. I have drawn an inference from [NAME_4]’s comment.

185.I find that taking all of the above into account that the claimant is a disabled person within the definition of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 with the condition of asthma, it affects her ability to undertake normal day to day activities, it has lasted longer than 12 months, and she has been subscribed medication for it.

Disability – issue 3.2

186.The claimant says she told [NAME_4] on the first day that she met him that she had asthma and told [NAME_31] the next day. There were no witnesses to this discussion.

187.The claimant provided a screen shot of a message to [NAME_31] which the claimant told me was sent in around early June 2023 which states “ ..I really don’t want to get involved in housekeeping as I have a severe allergy with chemicals and dust. I have asthma”. There is no date stamp on the screenshot and no evidence of the dates on the other screenshots after early June were identified by the claimant.

188.I find that the respondent knew of the claimant’s asthma at the latest from early June 2023 when the claimant told [NAME_31] about her disability as evidenced in the screenshot message.

Disability - issue 3.3.1

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 29 of 38

189.The claimant told me that she started to undertake housekeeping duties from her second week at the [COMPANY_20]. She said that she didn’t complain about it directly to [NAME_4], because she didn’t want to offend him.

190.The claimant told me that she continued to be asked to undertake housekeeping duties by [NAME_31] after early June, when she sent this message. No other date stamped evidence was submitted to prove this, however the claimant has been consistent in her oral evidence and witness statement and has provided screenshots of being asked to undertake housekeeping duties.

191.I find that being asked to undertake housekeeping duties when suffering from asthma and being exposed to her asthma triggers could amount to unfavorable treatment. The claimant has proved sufficient facts that shift the burden of proof to the respondent.

192.The respondent has consistently denied that the claimant is disabled did not offer any explanation as to why it treated the claimant unfavourably. [NAME_4] continued to deny that he knew the claimant, even though this matter had already been conceded by his own solicitors. I have drawn an inference from this approach.

193.Taking all the above into consideration, I find that this complaint succeeds.

Disability - issue 3.3.2

194.The claimant told me that another manager [NAME_11] (“[NAME_62]”) also knew of her asthma. The claimant says in her witness statement that she had a conversation with [NAME_62] on 15 June 2023, who witnessed the claimants side effects from her asthma trigger, a runny nose and told her that she should resign and leave the [COMPANY_20]. [NAME_62] was not called as a witness nor a witness statement submitted to support this. There were no other witnesses present.

195.I find that being asked to resign and leave Ambleside could amount to unfavorable treatment. However, I find that the claimant has not provided sufficient facts from which the burden of proof is shifted to the respondent. Accordingly, I find that this complaint fails.

Disability - issue 3.3.3

196.The respondent dismissed the claimant on 27 June 2023 via [COMPANY_35] message. A screenshot of the message was provided by the claimant. The reasons for the claimant’s dismissal are: not moving out of Claremont timely as requested; you do not like towel washing and refusing to do housekeeping duties and failure to complete work visa application.

197.Being dismissed is capable of being unfavorable treatment. The decision maker

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 30 of 38

was [NAME_31].

198.As a failure to undertake housekeeping duties and towel washing are mentioned in the dismissal message, I find that the claimant has provided sufficient facts from which the burden of proof is shifted to the respondent.

199.The respondent did not offer any explanation as to why it treated the claimant unfavourably and [NAME_4] continued to deny that he knew the claimant, even though this matter had already been conceded by his own solicitors. I have drawn an inference from this.

200.I considered whether the dismissal of the claimant and the less favourable treatment was clearly inextricably bound up to the illegality of the contract. I find that it was, because it terminated employment that the claimant should never have had in the first place. Taking all the above into consideration, I find that this complaint fails.

Race discrimination – issue 4

201.The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s stated protected characteristic of race that the claimant is Malaysian nationality and of Chinese ethnic origin. Her comparator is a hypothetical comparator for all of the allegations with the exception of issue 4.1.6 and 4.1.7.

Race discrimination – issue 4.1.1

202.The claimant in her witness statement states that [NAME_4] and [NAME_62] “assumed all Malaysians were Muslims, were very poor so we could not afford to and should not eat meat with their meals”

203.On the first day of her employment, the claimant told me that she was instructed to only eat what food was left over from the [COMPANY_63] breakfast buffet. She said that no food was freshly prepared for any of the staff and that all staff were instructed to eat what food was left over from the breakfast buffet. The claimant in her oral evidence told me that a good quality, expensive Cumberland sausage was on the [COMPANY_20] breakfast menu and that she had eaten two cold sausages. The claimant told me that in early June she was told not to eat the sausages by [NAME_62]. The claimant told me that she saw other staff members eating meat but had no evidence to support this allegation.

204.There were no other witnesses to the claimant being told not to eat meat, [NAME_62] was not called as a witness or provided a witness statement. Rather confusingly the claimant had provided a screenshot of a photograph of an empty pizza box as evidence to support this allegation. Upon further questions the claimant clarified that this image was too instead to evidence that another staff member was given a food allowance when on a night shift but she was not given one.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 31 of 38

205.Being made to eat leftover food and being told not to eat meat could amount to less favorable treatment. However, I find that the claimant has not provided sufficient facts to shift the burden of proof to the respondent.

206.The respondent denies the allegation and [NAME_4] made the comment that the majority of hotels in the Lake District do not provide any food for their staff. When I questioned [NAME_4] he said that he did not know if Malaysians ate meat or not and he treated all staff the same. [NAME_4] told me that all of the allegations are made up.

207.Taking all of the above into consideration, I find that this allegation fails and is dismissed.

Race discrimination – issue 4.1.2

208.The claimant says she was told not to speak Chinese to Chinese guests at the [COMPANY_20]. She told me in her oral evidence that [NAME_4] had told her this after he witnessed her speaking Chinese to guests in early June 2023. She said he gave her no reason for this, other than English should always be spoken when the claimant was working on reception. She says that other Chinese staff spoke to each other in Chinese and that [NAME_4] told all staff via [COMPANY_35] not to speak Chinese, after he had told the claimant off for speaking Chinese. Unfortunately, the claimant was not able to produce any evidence of the screenshot to support this allegation, and no witnesses were called or witness statement submitted.

209.I find that being told not to speak to Chinese to Chinese guests was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of being less favourable treatment.

210.I find that the claimant has failed to prove primary facts from which the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.

211.Accordingly, I find that this allegation fails and is dismissed.

Race discrimination – issue 4.1.3

212.The claimant confirmed that she was withdrawing this allegation.

Race discrimination – issue 4.1.4

213.The claimant was dismissed via a [COMPANY_35] message on 27 June 2023 from [NAME_31], who told the claimant that she had failed her probationary period. The reasons cited were failure to integrate into the team, not moving out of staff accommodation in time, not washing towels, refusal of housekeeping duties and for not completing work visa application.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 32 of 38

214.The claimant told me that she was dismissed because of her race because no

one else who was non British was dismissed. When I questioned her on this, she told me that [NAME_37], a Spanish national had also been dismissed without notice. The claimant did not provide any evidence or witnesses to support her allegation that her dismissal was linked to her race.

215.I find that being dismissed was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of being less favourable treatment, but I find that the claimant has failed to prove primary facts from which the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.

216.The respondent denies the allegations and [NAME_4] told me that all staff were treated the same, regardless of race. However, when questioned by me, [NAME_4] could not specifically tell me what equality policies the respondent had, although he was sure they had “something”, but he delegated the task to the [NAME_64].

217.Accordingly, I find that this allegation fails and is dismissed.

Race discrimination – issue 4.1.5

218.The claimant says she was the only staff member required to show her passport in order to be paid her wages. She told me she knew this because she asked other members of staff [NAME_65] and [NAME_66] whether they had to submit their passports and they confirmed to her that they did not. The claimant did not provide any evidence from [NAME_65] or [NAME_66] to support this. The claimant told me that she was the only Malaysian working at the [COMPANY_20] and the only employee that had been asked to provide her passport.

219.The claimant was able to show me a screenshot of a [COMPANY_35] message from [NAME_31] dated 27 June 2023 which stated “[NAME_25] but company policy is your passport copy and confirmation. No payment will be made without this” The claimant said that when she asked for a copy of the policy none was provided.

220.I find that having to provide a passport when other staff members were not required to do so, was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of being unfavorable treatment.

221.I find that the claimant has proved primary facts from which the burden of proof shifts from the claimant to the respondent.

222.[NAME_4] denied the allegation and told the Tribunal that all staff were treated the same. No policies have been submitted by the respondent to show that such a policy or practice existed. [NAME_4] did tell me that it was the practice for the managers to take a copy of every member of staff’s passport to keep on file. This cannot be sufficient explanation to justify less favourable treatment for [NAME_31]’s request in the message to the claimant on 27 June 2023.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 33 of 38

223.[NAME_4] consistently, throughout the hearing denied that the claimant was the

same person in the passport copy that he had submitted to the Tribunal, even though this had been conceded by his own solicitor in October 2024. After both the claimant and I both explained the naming system of Chinese Malaysian names he still refused to accept that the claimant was the same person. He consistently stated that he did not recognize the claimant as the person who worked at the [COMPANY_20] but could not offer any explanation as to how she had the screenshot evidence she had. I have drawn an inference from this.

224.Accordingly, taking all the above into consideration, I find that this allegation succeeds.

Race discrimination – issue 4.1.6

225.For this particular allegation the claimant advised me that her comparator was [NAME_67] whose race was Polish/Latvian.

226.The claimant provided screenshots of the [COMPANY_20] work rotas for weeks 1-6 that she was employed by the respondent. These show that the claimant worked mostly the night shifts.

227.I find that being made to work mostly night shifts was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of being less favourable treatment. I find that the claimant has not proved primary facts that shift the burden of proof to the respondent.

228.[NAME_4] told me that the night shift was easier for new employees because it was not as busy. All new employees would work mostly night shifts, which was quieter and less pressurised. The morning shift was much busier as [COMPANY_63] would be checking out, staff would have to assist with breakfast and preparing rooms.

229.I find that the respondent has offered a reasonable explanation for the reason why the claimant was mostly on night shifts and that it was not connected to race. Accordingly, I find that this allegation fails.

Race discrimination – issue 4.1.7

230.For this particular allegation the claimant advised me that her comparator was [NAME_67] whose race was Polish/Latvian .

231.The claimant told me that [NAME_67] had been given an allowance of £13 per night shift for food. No one had ever told the claimant about this allowance. The claimant only mentioned this allowance to [NAME_31] on her last day of employment when the calculation of her wages was being done. The claimant told me that she was not confident enough to ask about this previously and only asked about it once the relationship

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 34 of 38

with the respondent had broken down.

232.The evidence submitted by the claimant to support this allegation was: (i) a screen shot of a message from [NAME_31] that state allowance for dinner would not be included in her wages, which the claimant ultimately agreed to; and (ii) a photograph of an empty pizza box. The claimant explained that [NAME_67] had ordered a pizza using her food allowance. The claimant did not provide any other evidence showing that other members of staff were or were not given a food allowance of £13. I noted that no food allowance was stated in the claimant’s employment offer message.

233.I find that being denied a £13 food allowance was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of being less favourable treatment, but I find that the claimant has failed to prove primary facts from which the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.

234.[NAME_4] commented that not all employees had the same terms so some might have a food allowance and some might not because not all staff worked the night shift.

235. Taking all of the above into consideration, I find that this allegation fails.

Sex discrimination – issue 5

236.The claimant is a woman and relies on a hypothetical comparator of a man.

Sex discrimination – issue 5 .1.1

237.The claimant’s case is that [NAME_4] was trying to brainwash her to become a slave because she was a woman. A meeting took place at [NAME_4]’s house on the first day of her employment 22 May 2023. There were 2 witnesses in the house [NAME_62] and [NAME_4]’s wife, but the claimant told me there were no witnesses to the conversation and she was not allowed to use her mobile phone. The claimant did not call either [NAME_62] or [NAME_4]’s wife as witnesses or submitted witness statements.

238.The claimant states that [NAME_4] was trying to brainwash her by testing her boundaries. He was doing this says by asking her about her financial situation and asking her if she knew the value of a Malaysian passport. She also says that [NAME_4] told her that women from East Europe and Chinese women from poor countries were willing to become slaves to English men.

239.I believe that the claimant saw this as a detriment, but the claimant has not proved sufficient facts that shift the burden of proof to the respondent and accordingly I find that this allegation fails.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 35 of 38

Sex discrimination – issue 5 .1.2

240.The claimant’s case is that the respondent allowed [NAME_38] a fellow male employee to use a master keycard to enter the claimant’s room without her consent and whilst she was in the room. He did not enter the rooms of male employees. The first incident was on 10 June 2023.

241.The claimant said that she thought that it was [NAME_4] trying to enter her room and she sent a message to him, and [NAME_4] responded saying it was [NAME_38] and that he had authorised [NAME_38] to enter the staff rooms when the staff were at work so that they could carry out repairs, specifically to repair the wallpaper in the claimant’s room. The claimant told me that this was unnecessary because her room

had been newly wallpapered. The claimant then said she had sent a message via [COMPANY_35] to [NAME_38] and he replied after 2 hours saying he needed to see of the room needed wallpaper and he was not aware that the claimant was in the room.

242.The second incident took place on 18 June 2023 the claimant says, whilst she was in the shower and she told me that she yelled at [NAME_38] and he backed off. The claimant says that a fellow employee [NAME_68] had also told her about [NAME_38] entering her room whilst she was having a shower bringing a knife and fruit into [NAME_68]’s room. The claimant says that [NAME_38] admitted that he had entered her room. He also told me that she had reported the incidents to [NAME_62] shortly after the second incident, but [NAME_62] had ignored her messages.

243.Although the claimant has been consistent in her account of attempted entry into her room without her consent on 2 occasions, neither [NAME_62], [NAME_68] nor [NAME_38] were called as a witness or provided a witness statement. No screen shots of the messages the claimant said she sent were provided as evidence.

244.I believe that the claimant saw this as a detriment and that it could be capable of being less favourable treatment, but I find that the claimant has not proved primary facts to shift the burden of proof to the respondent.

245.[NAME_4] said he could not comment on allegations about events that he says did not happen.

246.I find that this allegation fails.

Sex discrimination – issue 5 .1.3

247.The claimants’ case is that she has never been paid any wages and that the respondent had a history of late payment to only female staff. The claimant gave an example of [NAME_17], saying it was only when her boyfriend confronted [NAME_4] that she received her wages. She says all male staff were paid on time and she knew that because she had asked them.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 36 of 38

248.I find that not being paid wages on time or not at all was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of being less favourable treatment.

249.The claimant told me that she had chased payment of her wages at least three times and that she did not want to be paid cash and that she was always willing to pay her taxes. The initial messages between [NAME_4] and the claimant prior to her starting work refer to payment in cash but the claimant did not show the Tribunal any evidence that she did not agree to this. The claimant had only provided her bank details to the respondent the day she was dismissed.

250.The claimant provided a screenshot of a message providing her bank details dated 27 June 2023, her last day of employment together with a screenshot of a message from [NAME_17] dated 30 June 20203 where [NAME_17] confirmed that she had also not been paid on time.

251.I find that the claimant has proved primary facts that shift the burden of proof from the claimant to the respondent.

252.[NAME_4] told me that the respondent had not paid any monies to the claimant and that he denied that the claimant worked at the [COMPANY_20], even though the identity of the claimant had been conceded by the respondent’s solicitor.

253.[NAME_4] told me that all staff were paid on time, but he did not submit any evidence to demonstrate this and I have drawn an inference from this.

254.Taking all of the above into consideration, I find that this allegation succeeds.

Sex discrimination – issue 5 .1. 4

255.The claimant‘s case is that the respondent viewed the claimant as weak and vulnerable because she was a woman and needed a work visa. The claimant told me that only the women that respondent employed needed a work visa whereas the men that were employed did not. The claimant named her female colleagues that needed a work visa. She was adamant that no men were hired who needed a work visa.

256.However, earlier in the hearing the claimant had mentioned that [NAME_38], (a Chinese male) did not have a work visa and worked at the [COMPANY_20].

257.I find that being viewed as weak and vulnerable because she needed a work visa was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of being less favourable treatment, but I find that the claimant has not proved facts from which the burden of proof shifts to the respondent, because a male had been treated in the same less favourable way, so was not due to sex.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 37 of 38

258.Taking all of the above in consideration, I find that this allegation fails.

Sex discrimination – issue 5.1.5

259.The claimant says that she was dismissed by [NAME_31] on 27 June 2023 because of her sex, she says only women were dismissed. She told me that another employee, [NAME_69], did not do his job well, and was not dismissed. When I asked about other female colleagues who had been dismissed, she mentioned [NAME_19] who had resigned, [NAME_68] who had left of her own accord. Again, the claimant was adamant that no men had been dismissed. The claimant had told me earlier about [NAME_37], a Spanish male who had been dismissed without notice.

260.I find that being dismissed because she was a woman was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of being less favourable treatment, but I find that the claimant has not proved facts from which the burden of proof shifts to the respondent as a male had also been dismissed, so the less favourable is not related to sex.

261.Accordingly, I find that this allegation fails.

Sex discrimination – issue 5 .1.6

262.The claimant’s case is that because she is a woman she was told that she had to hand in her passport in order to receive her arrears of pay. The claimant had previously told me that she was not aware of anyone else working at the [COMPANY_20] that had been required to hand in their passport in order to receive their wages.

263.The claimant provided evidence by way of a screenshot from [NAME_31] dated 27 June 2023 showing that she had to provide a copy of her passport because of company policy. When she asked for the respondent for a copy of this policy none was provided.

264.I find that being required to hand in her passport was seen by the claimant as a detriment and is capable of less favourable treatment.

265.The claimant has proved sufficient facts to shift the burden of proof to the respondent.

266.[NAME_4] provided the same explanation as he had done in issue 4.1.5 and again I have drawn an inference from this and find his explanation insufficient. [NAME_4] also told me that he valued the female employees more than women because they were punctual and more hardworking. He told me that male employees tended to go out drinking and would not tell the respondent that they were not coming into work. He told me in his oral evidence that he “cherished “the female employees. I have drawn an inference from [NAME_4]’s comments.

Case Number: 2411704/2023 Page 38 of 38

267.Accordingly, I find that this allegation succeeds.

268.A remedy hearing will take place on Monday 1 June 2026 and the claimant should file an updated schedule of loss, copying in the respondent 7 days before the remedy hearing. The schedule of loss should only take into account the claims that the claimant has succeeded on.

Approved by:

Employment Judge Dennehy

28 February 2026

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

22 April 2026

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.[NAME_61] shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:

www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/