Case 1301099/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Stacey Wilkinson v Cranlea Human Performance Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301099/2021
- Decision date
- 16 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Panel members
- Mrs Whitehill, Mr Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Stacey Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Stacey Wilkinson brought claims against Cranlea Human Performance Limited for unfair dismissal, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, holiday pay and breach of contract. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim, and the holiday pay complaint, each as not well-founded.
The breach of contract complaint was upheld. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £851 gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested. The extracted decision therefore records the outcomes and remedy, but not the tribunal's full reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £851 gross. | Upheld | — | £851 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £851
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.