Case 1600320/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Jones v Mr E A Jones & Mr R J Pittman (a partnership) Heard: via video — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600320/2020
- Decision date
- 28 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Panel members
- Mrs L Bishop, Mr W Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard via video on 24 and 25 September 2020 before Employment Judge S Jenkins, sitting with Mrs L Bishop and Mr W Horne. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims of automatic unfair dismissal under sections 99 and/or 104C of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, failed and were dismissed.
The tribunal also recorded that the claims in respect of holiday pay and unauthorised deductions from wages were dismissed on withdrawal. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the decision itself contains no further findings of fact or remedy awards.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded as claims of automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to sections 99 and/or 104C Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 99 and/or 104C Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
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.