Case 1301047/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs A Adada, director of respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1301047/2019
- Decision date
- 16 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 16 December 2019, before Employment Judge Kelly, dismissed the claimant Mrs G Gontea's claims for unfair dismissal and pregnancy or maternity discrimination against Anne Claire Baby Store Ltd. The judgment records those dismissals without any separate monetary award on those claims.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim. It found that the respondent had failed to pay four weeks less one day's notice pay, and ordered the respondent to pay £1,579.05.
The award was calculated as £1,263.24 for four weeks' pay less one day's pay, increased by 25% by way of an additional £315.81 for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Grievances. No other remedy components are recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Breach of contract | Awarded for failure to pay four weeks less one day's notice pay. The judgment states this sum was calculated as £1,263.24 for notice pay plus a 25% increase of £315.81 for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Grievances. | Upheld | — | £1,579 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,579
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,263
- compensatory remedy recorded
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.