Case 1805947/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Khuphe v Comforting Hands Recruitment Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805947/2022
- Decision date
- 12 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Khuphe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Robertson Date found that Ms F Khuphe's complaints against Comforting Hands Recruitment Limited were well-founded. The tribunal upheld her complaint of unfair dismissal within section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described in the judgment as dismissal arising from pregnancy.
The tribunal also upheld her complaint of unlawful pregnancy and maternity discrimination contrary to sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of her dismissal. No separate factual findings are set out in the extracted judgment beyond the tribunal's conclusion that both complaints succeeded.
The judgment did not determine remedy. It records that the amount due to the claimant would be decided at a separate Remedy Hearing, for which separate case management orders were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal within section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, arising from pregnancy, was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unlawful pregnancy and maternity discrimination contrary to sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010, in respect of her dismissal, was well-founded. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 18 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.