Case 1306762/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Whitehouse v Asda Stores Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306762/2019
- Decision date
- 25 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 9 September 2020, Employment Judge Cookson sitting alone determined limitation and case-management issues in Miss V Whitehouse’s claims against Asda Stores Limited. The tribunal first dealt with the claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages complaints, which concerned non-payment of statutory maternity pay for March to July 2018 and an alleged unlawful deduction in February 2019. It found that it was reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been brought within the statutory time limits, that they were not, and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider them.
The tribunal then considered the claimant’s pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints under s18 of the Equality Act 2010. It held that the complaint about non-payment of statutory maternity pay for March to July 2018 was out of time and was not brought within a period that was just and equitable. By contrast, the complaint relating to the February 2019 deduction and the failure to carry out any risk assessment before maternity leave began in April 2019 was out of time but the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis, so that claim would proceed.
The tribunal also recorded, for the avoidance of doubt, that the claimant’s complaints relating to non-payment of maternity pay in August 2019 were brought in time. The respondent’s application to strike out the claims on the basis that they had no or little reasonable prospect was refused. The case was then listed for a final hearing before an Employment Judge sitting with members, with all issues including remedy to be determined at that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the complaints about non-payment of statutory maternity pay for March to July 2018 and the alleged unlawful deduction of wages in February 2019 were not brought within the statutory time limits. It found it was reasonably practicable to bring them in time and therefore said it had no jurisdiction to consider them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint under s18 EqA 2010 relating to non-payment of statutory maternity pay for March to July 2018 was held out of time and not brought within a period that was just and equitable. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider that complaint. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint under s18 EqA 2010 relating to the alleged unlawful deduction in February 2019 and the failure to carry out any risk assessment before maternity leave began in April 2019 was held out of time, but the tribunal found it was just and equitable to extend time. The claim was allowed to proceed to the final hearing. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint relating to non-payment of maternity pay in August 2019 was recorded as being in time. No merits determination was made at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- no or little reasonable prospect
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.