Case 1400504/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Moth v LP SD Three Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400504/2024
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- by CVP from the Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr M Richardson, Mr P Bompas
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Moth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Woodhead sitting with Mr M Richardson and Mr P Bompas at the Bristol Employment Tribunal by CVP on 12 and 13 May 2025. Miss R Moth appeared in person and LP SD Three Limited was represented by Mr N Henry, Litigation Consultant. The tribunal recorded two complaints arising from maternity leave: a complaint of detriments by reason of the Claimant having given birth to a child and taken ordinary maternity leave or additional maternity leave, and a complaint of unfavourable treatment because the Claimant was on ordinary or additional maternity leave.
The tribunal held that both complaints were not well founded and dismissed them. The extracted judgment contains only the formal decision and does not include written reasons, which were not provided because the judgment was given orally at the hearing. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint that the Claimant was subjected to detriments by reason of having given birth to a child and taken ordinary maternity leave or additional maternity leave. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because the Claimant was on ordinary or additional maternity leave. | 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.