Case 1309028/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Lad v Lily Head Dental Practice Sales Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309028/2022
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Panel members
- Mrs Campbell, Mrs Chavda
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Lad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Lad brought two linked claims against Lily Head Dental Practice Sales Limited. The tribunal held that one pregnancy and maternity discrimination allegation succeeded in the 2023 claim: issue 2.1.5, concerning the respondent's refusal from July 2023 to provide a replacement work phone or SIM after the claimant said she had lost her phone, which prevented her from accessing the WhatsApp group chat during her second maternity leave. It also held that one victimisation allegation succeeded on the same factual issue, with the claimant's 20 January 2022 holiday-pay complaint treated as the protected act for the victimisation claim.
All other pregnancy and maternity allegations were dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent had either complied with the relevant maternity leave rules, correctly stated the claimant's notice obligations, corrected an initial mistake about holiday carry-over, or acted for reasons unrelated to pregnancy or maternity. It rejected the allegations about event allocation, advice about sick leave and maternity leave, risk assessments before a return to work that never happened, alleged curtailment of maternity leave, removal from the WhatsApp group in March 2022, and failure to tell the claimant about the Corporate Finance Director opportunity.
The direct race discrimination claim was dismissed. On the father's heart-attack allegation, the tribunal found the claimant was given the same day off as a non-Asian colleague in a comparable situation and had not asked for, and been refused, additional time off. On the promotion and sales-allocation allegations, it found either that the claimant had been given the chance to apply, that the comparators were materially different, or that the allocations and commission decisions were explained by skills, experience, client relationships, workload, or the financial outcome of the deal rather than race.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant had not been curtailed from maternity leave onto sick leave by the respondent and that the sums paid from 14 March 2022 onwards were the correct amounts. The judgment records no separate remedy award or compensation figure.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Succeeded only on issue 2.1.5: from July 2023 the respondent refused to replace the claimant's lost work phone or provide a SIM, which meant she could not access the WhatsApp group chat during her second maternity leave. All other pregnancy and maternity allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | Succeeded only on issue 3.2.5. The protected act was the claimant's 20 January 2022 complaint that withholding holiday pay was unlawful. All other victimisation allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | All direct race discrimination allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed; the tribunal found the respondent did not curtail maternity leave or place the claimant on sick leave and that the sums paid from 14 March 2022 onwards were correct. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.18 EqA 2010
- s.27 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Onu v Akwiwu / Taiwo v Olaigbe
- Indigo Design Build and Management Ltd v Martinez
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- s.13 ERA 1996
- New Century Cleaning v Church
- Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 regs 7 and 11
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 regs 3 and 16
- Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme v Williams
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.