Case 1303186/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Miss Megan Clark First v Second Respondent: BW Gardening Ltd Baaj Capital LLP — 2023

Case reference: 1303186/2023
Decision date: 16 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss Megan Clark First

Respondent

Second Respondent: BW Gardening Ltd Baaj Capital LLP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Birmingham by CVP on 16 November 2023, the tribunal dismissed all claims against Baaj Capital LLP because the claimant was not an employee or worker of the second respondent within section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 or section 83 Equality Act 2010.

Against BW Gardening Ltd, the tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well founded under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered £625. It also found that the claimant had been treated unlawfully in the protected period in relation to pregnancy, and that she was discriminated against by being dismissed.

The unfair dismissal complaint also succeeded. The tribunal held that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for reasons connected with pregnancy under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996, that there was no chance she would have been fairly dismissed in any event, that the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 did not apply, and that it was not just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award for contributory conduct. The first respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £125, a compensatory award of £500, £625 holiday pay, and £21,850.95 for unlawful discrimination, made up of £9,408.35 past financial losses, £362.93 interest, £6,695.01 future financial losses, £5,000 injury to feelings, and £384.66 interest. The recoupment provisions did not apply.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The tribunal found pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the protected period, and also found that the claimant was discriminated against by being dismissed. The discrimination award was £21,850.95 inclusive of interest.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	£21,851
Unfair dismissal	The claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for reasons connected with pregnancy under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found there was no chance she would have been fairly dismissed in any event and that she did not contribute to her dismissal by blameworthy conduct.	Upheld	—	£625
Holiday pay	The first respondent failed to pay holiday pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.	Upheld	—	£625
Other	All claims against the second respondent were dismissed because the claimant was not an employee of the second respondent within section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 or section 83 Equality Act 2010, and not a worker within section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £23,101; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £125; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £500; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.