Case 2202944/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr T Mousis (Claimant’s husband) For the v No appearance or — 2019

Case reference: 2202944/2019
Decision date: 15 May 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Stout Representations
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr T Mousis (Claimant’s husband) For the

Respondent

No appearance or

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent did not enter a response and the matter proceeded under Rule 21. The tribunal was satisfied that service and notice had been given in accordance with the rules, while noting the respondent had entered creditors' voluntary liquidation before the claim was served. The claimant was employed as a Barista from 15 June 2017 until 15 May 2019.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant had not completed two years' continuous employment by the effective date of termination. The unlawful deductions claim succeeded because the tribunal found the claimant was entitled under the 2018 contract to £9.50 per hour from the 30 November 2018 payroll, but was paid £9.00 per hour, resulting in a net unlawful deduction of £414.13.

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 15 May 2019 during the protected period in relation to her pregnancy, and that pregnancy was at least a material part of the reason for the dismissal because there was no other explanation for it. It found pregnancy discrimination contrary to ss 18(2)(a) and 39(2)(c) Equality Act 2010, awarded £1,500 injury to feelings plus £68.71 interest, and made no loss of earnings award. The tribunal also found the claimant's written contract lacked required particulars about the employer and employment start date, so it added two weeks' pay of £661.80 under s 38 Employment Act 2002.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment by the effective date of termination, so the ordinary unfair dismissal claim failed under s 108(2) ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found a series of deductions between 30 November 2018 and 31 May 2019 because the claimant was paid £9.00 per hour rather than the £9.50 per hour due under the 2018 contract.	Upheld	—	£414
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The tribunal found the respondent contravened ss 18(2)(a) and 39(2)(c) Equality Act 2010 by dismissing the claimant on 15 May 2019 during the protected period in relation to her pregnancy. The award comprised £1,500 injury to feelings and £68.71 interest.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	£1,569
Other	The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide a compliant statement of particulars of employment and increased the awards by two weeks' pay under s 38 Employment Act 2002.	Upheld	—	£662

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,645; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

18 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.