Case 1400461/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Storm Botha v White Lake Cheeses Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400461/2022
- Decision date
- 20 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Street
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- D England, E Bees
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Storm Botha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, an assistant cheesemaker who later worked in marketing and administration, went off sick on 5 October 2021, suffered a miscarriage on 19 November 2021 and was dismissed on 13 December 2021 with effect from 19 December 2021. The Tribunal found that on 21 September 2021 Mr Longman, the Managing Director, told her she would have to return to her cheesemaker role at a reduced rate of £9.50 per hour rather than £11, and that this and subsequent treatment, including the dismissal, were because of her pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness. The Tribunal characterised Mr Longman's conduct as impulsive, erratic and inaccurate rather than malicious in some respects, but found the treatment after the grievance to amount to victimisation.
The Tribunal upheld claims of pregnancy discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, pregnancy-related detriment under section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996, victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, and automatically unfair dismissal for a reason connected with pregnancy. In the alternative, a sex discrimination claim was upheld in respect of the persistent correspondence and dismissal during the Claimant's pregnancy-related sickness absence. The grievance and grievance appeal were accepted as protected acts and the failure to engage with the appeal reasonably, impartially and fairly was found to be victimisation.
The claims of protected disclosure detriment and dismissal under sections 47B and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, automatically unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds under section 100, and the complaint about the written statement of employment particulars were all dismissed. The wrongful dismissal claim had previously been dismissed on withdrawal, and ordinary unfair dismissal was not within jurisdiction because the Claimant lacked two years' service. Remedy was not quantified in the liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy discrimination contrary to Equality Act 2010 s.18: unfavourable treatment including dismissal during the protected period because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness, and detriment for a reason related to pregnancy contrary to s.47C Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Upheld in the alternative: if the tribunal was wrong that events after 2 December implemented decisions made in the protected period, sex discrimination because of pregnancy was made out in the persistent correspondence and dismissal following a meeting the Claimant was unable to attend while suffering a pregnancy-related illness. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation contrary to Equality Act 2010 s.27 upheld in respect of the reduction of pay and change of role and the failure to engage with and respond to the Claimant's grievance appeal reasonably, impartially and fairly. Protected acts were the grievance and grievance appeal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996, the principal reason for dismissal being pregnancy. Claimant did not have two years' service so 'ordinary' unfair dismissal was not within jurisdiction. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claims of protected disclosure detriment (s.47B ERA 1996) and automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures (s.103A ERA 1996) were dismissed. The automatically unfair dismissal claim on health and safety grounds (s.100 ERA 1996) was also dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Equality Act 2010 section 18
- Equality Act 2010 section 27
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47B
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47C
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 48
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 99
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 100
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 103A
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 43B
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 1
- Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.