Case 1602269/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Hughes v Ms A Dobbins trading as IJ and AD Dobbins — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602269/2020
- Decision date
- 20 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms James, Ms Mason
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Hughes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal sat in Cardiff by CVP on 19 August 2021 before Employment Judge R F Powell with members Ms James and Ms Mason. The claimant was Ms K Hughes and the respondent was Ms A Dobbins trading as IJ and AD Dobbins. The tribunal’s judgment was unanimous.
The tribunal upheld three claims. It found that the claimant’s dismissal was an act of discrimination contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. It also found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant contrary to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with the statutory particulars of pay contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The extracted judgment text does not record any separate monetary remedy, award breakdown, or further reasoning beyond the three findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the dismissal was an act of discrimination contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant contrary to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with the statutory particulars of pay contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The locked taxonomy does not contain a specific claim type for that statutory particulars claim. | Upheld | — | — |
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.