Case 1402947/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Katie Lidster v United Kingdon Research and Innovation — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402947/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Mr E Beese, Dr C Hole
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Katie Lidster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Katie Lidster brought claims in case numbers 1402947/2020 and 1406027/2020 against United Kingdon Research and Innovation. The tribunal upheld her complaint of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy and maternity under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 and her complaint of detriments relating to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave under section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record states that liability on those complaints was conceded by the respondent, so the judgment does not contain contested findings on liability in the written reasons.
The claimant's victimisation complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The tribunal awarded compensation of £23,000 plus interest of £2,681, making a total award of £25,681. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint under section 18 Equality Act 2010; liability was conceded by the respondent. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | Complaint of detriments relating to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave under section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996; liability was conceded by the respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,681
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £23,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.