Case 1800900/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claire Bacon v Fetch! Retail Limited Heard: by Cloud Video Platform — 2025
- Case reference
- 1800900/2024
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claire Bacon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningClaire Bacon was employed as a Senior Category Manager and was on maternity leave from 18 November 2022 until 6 November 2023. The respondent acquired the business under TUPE, later became loss-making, and in October 2023 began a restructure and redundancy exercise. The tribunal found that the respondent decided not to place the claimant at risk of redundancy while she was on maternity leave, partly on HR advice and partly in the hope that the financial position might improve. It also found that the claimant and a male colleague in the same role were both eventually placed at risk, and that the dismissal process followed a genuine redundancy exercise.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy, not maternity leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Section 18 EqA 2010 claim based on delay in redundancy consultation, failure to offer suitable alternative roles, cancellation of KIT days, and the SAR complaint. The tribunal found the delay and SAR complaint were not made out as unlawful treatment, and the KIT day cancellations were not because of maternity leave. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | Detriment complaint under section 47C ERA 1996 based on the delayed redundancy consultation and cancelled KIT days. The tribunal held the consultation delay was not a detriment and the KIT day cancellations were not for a prescribed reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Croydon Health Services NHS Trust v Beatt
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
- Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- De Souza v Automobile Association
- section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996
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.