Case 1400217/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Emily Stephenson v Funeral Guide Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400217/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Emily Stephenson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in an undefended case brought by Emily Stephenson against Funeral Guide Limited. The tribunal considered the available information and applied the approach in Limoine v Sharma UKEAT/0094/19/RN, asking whether the claim form and other materials made out the factual elements needed to establish the claims in law on the basis that the claimant's account was treated as undisputed.
The tribunal concluded that the claim form made good the claims identified in the judgment. Those claims were discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity, a redundancy payment, notice pay, and holiday pay. Each of those claims succeeded.
The judgment did not assess or record a final remedy. It states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. No monetary award is set out in the liability judgment, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 7 February 2023.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers only to a 'claim for notice pay' and does not give a fuller legal label; this has been mapped to breach of contract. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Limoine v Sharma UKEAT/0094/19/RN
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.