Case 1805750/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Crawford v JS Woodcraft Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1805750/2023
- Decision date
- 28 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- By CVP
- Panel members
- Ms BR Hodgkinson, Mr DW Eales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Crawford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the principal reason for Miss Crawford’s dismissal was redundancy, and that she had already received a statutory redundancy payment. On that basis, her unfair dismissal complaint succeeded pursuant to section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also upheld her complaint of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy. It awarded a compensatory award of £2,499.12 for unfair dismissal, made up of £2,019.12 for lost maternity pay and £480 for lost statutory rights. For the pregnancy complaint, it awarded £11,000 for injury to feelings together with £806 interest.
The total sum payable by the respondent was £14,305.12. The tribunal also recorded that the recoupment regulations did not apply to these awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy and that the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,499 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records an award of £11,000 for injury to feelings plus £806 interest; it does not separately apportion those sums further. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £11,806 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,305
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,499
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98(4) ERA 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.