Case 1307970/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1307970/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Members
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr P. Collier, Mrs S. Bannister
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K Jarrett's case against Precious Homes Limited was heard at Birmingham via CVP on 1, 2 and 3 September 2021 before Employment Judge Wedderspoon with lay members Mr P. Collier and Mrs S. Bannister. The claimant was represented by herself and the respondent by Ms Mellor, Counsel.
The judgment records a single substantive outcome: all of the claimant's complaints of pregnancy related discrimination were found not well founded and were dismissed. The extracted text does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or legal reasoning, because the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The written record also states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that all of the claimant's complaints of pregnancy related discrimination were not well founded and were dismissed. No separate sub-claims or remedy figures are identified in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.