Case 1601649/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Pritchard v Ultimate N & B Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601649/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
- Venue
- By Video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Pritchard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video on 2 March 2022 before Employment Judge S Moore under Rule 21, after the respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but it made no basic or compensatory award on that claim.
The claimant's redundancy payment claim also succeeded, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,200.77. It further found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £1,692.90 notice pay and £860.70 holiday pay. The unpaid wages element was adjourned.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide itemised pay statements. It also upheld the claimant's direct discrimination claim on pregnancy and maternity grounds and awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the claim succeeded, but no basic or compensatory award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,201 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award comprised £1,692.90 notice pay and £860.70 holiday pay; the unpaid wages element was adjourned. | Upheld | — | £2,554 |
| Other | The respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £2,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,754
- across all upheld claims
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.