Case 1400802/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Dawson , CAB For the v Dawn Run Ltd- Mr Longhurst, director and 3 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400802/2020
- Decision date
- 1 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
5 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Southampton by CVP on 21 January 2021 before Employment Judge Dawson. The written record states that the tribunal determined the claimant's employer from and including 1 November 2020 was Dawn Run Ltd. Dawn Run Ltd had not presented a response to the claim.
On that basis, judgment was entered against Dawn Run Ltd in respect of the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity, breach of contract relating to notice, and unlawful deductions from wages. The claims against the other respondents were dismissed.
The judgment did not assess remedy at this stage. The claim was listed for a remedy hearing on 1 April 2021 before a judge sitting alone at Southampton Employment Tribunal, and the note recorded that the claimant intended to rely on the witness statement and bundle already submitted.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment was entered against Dawn Run Ltd; the claims against the other respondents were dismissed. Remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Judgment was entered against Dawn Run Ltd; the claims against the other respondents were dismissed. Remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was described as relating to notice. Judgment was entered against Dawn Run Ltd only; the claims against the other respondents were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment was entered against Dawn Run Ltd; the claims against the other respondents were dismissed. Remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.