Case 1602012/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Keogh v The Old School House Day Nursery Limited (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1602012/2019
- Decision date
- 25 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
- Panel members
- Mrs B Currie, Ms B Roberts
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss S Keogh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Keogh was employed by The Old School House Day Nursery Ltd from 25 February 2019 as an apprentice nursery nurse. She told the nursery that she was pregnant on 29 March 2019. The first respondent later went into liquidation and did not take part in the hearing. The tribunal heard the pregnancy discrimination claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010 and the antenatal appointment claim under sections 55 and 57 Employment Rights Act 1996, together with limitation arguments.
The tribunal found that a generic risk assessment for expectant mothers was already in place and that a specific assessment for the claimant was completed on 24 May 2019. It rejected the allegations that the respondent failed to complete risk assessments promptly, that the disciplinary process was because of pregnancy, and that the dismissal was because of pregnancy. It accepted, however, that on 9 April, 15 May and 23 May 2019 the claimant had antenatal appointments during working hours, and that the first respondent failed to allow paid time off for them by recording the days as annual leave or as not required.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the claims were out of time on their face, but it extended time. It found that the claimant's serious illness in August 2019, together with the late stage of her pregnancy, meant it had not been reasonably practicable to present the ERA complaint in time, and that it was then brought within a further reasonable period. For the Equality Act claim, it held that it was just and equitable to extend time.
Remedy was limited. The tribunal awarded £35.10 for the unpaid antenatal appointment time, calculated by allowing three hours per appointment at the claimant's hourly rate of £3.90. It also awarded £1,000 for injury to feelings, assessed at the lower end of the Vento band. The total award was £1,035.10 against The Old School House Day Nursery Ltd only.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Succeeded only in relation to the failure to allow paid time off for antenatal appointments; the allegations about the risk assessment, disciplinary process and dismissal were dismissed. The claim against Ms J Roberts failed; liability and the injury to feelings award were against The Old School House Day Nursery Limited only. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £1,000 |
| Other | Claim under sections 55 and 57 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unreasonable refusal to permit time off for antenatal appointments. The tribunal found the claim was made out against the employer only, not against Ms J Roberts, and awarded £35.10 for the unpaid appointment time. | Upheld | — | £35 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,035
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £35
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.55 and s.57 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.57(2) ERA reasonable practicability test
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Interserve FM Limited v Tuleikyte
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Sefton Borough Council v Wainwright
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty
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.