Case 1402389/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Holmes v AND Stags (A Partnership) and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402389/2019
- Decision date
- 8 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs P Holmes
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in chambers at Plymouth on 8 July 2019 under Rule 21, after the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. It identified the first respondent as Stags (A Partnership), namely the named partners trading as Stags, and the second respondent as Alex John Rew.
In the judgment, the tribunal recorded that Mrs P Holmes had been discriminated against on the grounds of her pregnancy/maternity, and that her claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. The extracted text does not set out the fuller reasoning for those findings, but it does record both claims as successful.
The tribunal did not determine remedy at that stage. Instead, it stated that the appropriate remedy would be determined at a later hearing, with notification details to follow, and it cancelled the telephone case management preliminary hearing listed for 19 December 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Judgment under Rule 21 recorded that the claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of her pregnancy/maternity; the precise reasoning is not set out in the extracted text. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeds; remedy was not determined in this judgment. | 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.