Case 2200811/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Redden v Moorwand Limited Heard remotely (London Central) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200811/2021
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henderson
- Panel members
- Mrs J Griffiths, Ms L Moreton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Redden
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability hearing on 5-7 April 2022, Employment Judge Henderson, sitting with Mrs J Griffiths and Ms L Moreton, held that Mrs T Redden's claim for pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in two respects: the dismissal on 24 April 2021 and the respondent's failure to give her any forewarning or advance consultation before dismissal. The tribunal dismissed the remaining section 18 allegations, namely failure to raise performance issues before dismissal and refusal to provide a reference.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Succeeded in respect of the claimant's dismissal on 24 April 2021 and the respondent's failure to give forewarning or advance consultation of the dismissal. The tribunal dismissed the remaining section 18 allegations, including failure to raise performance issues before dismissal and refusal to give a reference. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 for automatically unfair dismissal for family reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claims under section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulations 19 and 20 of the Maternity & Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 for detriment other than dismissal relating to pregnancy/maternity leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.