Ms J Morgan v Panelex Wood Agency Limited and 1 other — 2026

Ms Jessica Morgan worked for Panelex Wood Agency Limited from 2 April 2020 to 22 October 2024, latterly as National Sales Manager. The tribunal dismissed her unfair and wrongful dismissal claims because her employment ended by mutual agreement. It found that, at the meeting on 22 October, the parties agreed she would not return and could keep her company car until Christmas. Her subsequent messages repeatedly referred to an agreement. Applying section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that the employer had not used words amounting to dismissal and that Morgan entered the agreement of her own volition.

The tribunal found that Frederick Geraint Hawkes said, on one or more occasions around 6 November 2023, that nobody wanted to see a pregnant woman. It accepted Morgan's contemporaneous WhatsApp messages as reliable evidence. The comment amounted to unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy during the protected period. However, the tribunal found that Hawkes had not linked comments about forgetfulness to pregnancy. It did not accept the separate allegation that he had said Morgan would not return, giving no weight to the supporting witness statement because its author did not attend for cross-examination.

The other pregnancy and maternity allegations were also rejected or withdrawn. The tribunal accepted that Morgan's email account was removed for technical reasons affecting the invoicing system and that her emails were preserved on a USB stick. The evidence did not establish when or why her website details were removed. Hawkes' response to her April 2024 request for keeping-in-touch days was not a flat refusal; the tribunal accepted that he considered them premature and that there was no operational need. Morgan withdrew the allegation concerning an earlier request for keeping-in-touch days.

Although the November 2023 comment satisfied section 18 Equality Act 2010, the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found no continuing course of discrimination ending within the time limit. The comment was a standalone act and the claim was substantially late. Morgan had not explained why she failed to bring it in time or provided grounds for a just and equitable extension under section 123.

The direct sex discrimination claim concerned an alleged comment at the October meeting that Morgan's partner earned enough for her to stay at home. The tribunal accepted that her domestic life and finances were discussed and that there was a reference to being looked after. It found insufficient evidence that the comment was made in the terms or context alleged and dismissed the claim.

The victimisation claim succeeded on both alleged detriments. The tribunal found that asking Morgan to return her company car on 28 October 2024 withdrew an agreed benefit shortly after she requested payment for holiday accrued during maternity leave. It treated that request as a protected act and found that the demand for the car's return was a direct response to it. Morgan returned the car, but the tribunal found that the respondents then failed to make the payments and engaged less with her requests.