Case 1400858/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sophie Higgins v AND The Magnificent Science Company Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400858/2020
- Decision date
- 10 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sophie Higgins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in chambers at Plymouth on 5 March 2020 after the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. Employment Judge N J Roper entered judgment for the claimant, Mrs Sophie Higgins, against The Magnificent Science Company Limited.
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her sex/maternity. In addition, the claimant's claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages succeeded.
The judgment further records that the claimant's claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay was successful. The tribunal did not determine remedy in this decision and stated that the appropriate remedy would be determined at a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found under Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states discrimination on the grounds of her sex/maternity. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim succeeded under Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded under Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to accrued but unpaid holiday pay. | 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.