Case 2200291/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Kanocz v 1 Ms Y Prychyna 2 Mr C Garstin — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200291/2018
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grewal
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms J Griffiths, Ms J Nicholas
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Kanocz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in London Central before Employment Judge Grewal with Ms J Griffiths and Ms J Nicholas, heard the claimant's complaints of pregnancy/maternity discrimination, unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy pay on 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 October 2019. It gave a unanimous judgment orally at the hearing and recorded that it would not provide written reasons unless requested.
On the discrimination complaint, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider alleged pregnancy/maternity discrimination in respect of acts said to have taken place before 26 October 2018. It also held that the complaints of pregnancy/maternity discrimination in respect of acts on or after 26 October 2018 were not well-founded.
The tribunal further held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded. The claim for statutory redundancy pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider complaints about alleged pregnancy/maternity discrimination in respect of acts before 26 October 2018, and held that the complaints relating to acts on or after 26 October 2018 were not well-founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim for statutory redundancy pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.