Case 1808375/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Isles v Weetwood Hall Hotel Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1808375/2018
- Decision date
- 10 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms H Brown, Mr I W Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Isles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Leeds, before Employment Judge JM Wade with lay members Ms H Brown and Mr I W Taylor, found that Mrs D Isles' unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The judgment also records that her complaint that dismissal was influenced by pregnancy or by the exercising of maternity leave rights succeeded.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of victimisation. It also dismissed the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy during her notice period, although allegation (ii) in that part of the case succeeded. The judgment does not set out any monetary award or any further reasons in the extracted text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of dismissal influenced by pregnancy or the exercising of maternity leave rights succeeded. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy during the claimant's notice period, save that allegation (ii) succeeded. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.