Case 2201706/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lewis-Bale, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201706/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms J Holgate, Ms Z Darmas
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Lewis-Bale, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed by the respondent contrary to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
It rejected the direct maternity leave discrimination allegations in paragraphs 12(a) to (c) of the list of issues, but upheld the same claim in relation to paragraphs 12(d) to (f). The tribunal also found that the claimant's indirect sex discrimination claim at paragraph 14(a) succeeded. The remainder of the indirect sex discrimination claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £46,583.44 in total, made up of £29,668.64 loss of earnings, £8,000 injury to feelings, £1,883.43 ACAS uplift and £7,031.37 interest.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 | The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed contrary to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Direct maternity leave discrimination in relation to paragraphs 12(a) to (c) of the list of issues was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Direct maternity leave discrimination in relation to paragraphs 12(d) to (f) of the list of issues was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination on the ground set out at paragraph 14(a) of the list of issues was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The remainder of the indirect sex discrimination claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £46,583
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £31,552
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.