Case 2204943/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Mathur (Counsel) v Mr J Forbes (Husband of First Respondent) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204943/2019
- Decision date
- 31 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms T Breslin, Ms L Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Mathur (Counsel)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a liability-only judgment of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London Central before Employment Judge Glennie with lay members Ms T Breslin and Ms L Jones, heard 27-30 April 2021 with deliberations in chambers on 6 and 7 May 2021. The Claimant, Miss O Havdan, brought complaints against Mrs Olesya Forbes (First Respondent) and Bagelmania Limited (Second Respondent, her employer) arising out of events during and after her pregnancy in 2019.
The Tribunal unanimously found the following complaints well-founded: automatic unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA 1996 and reg.20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, and unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996 (against the Second Respondent); breach of contract / wrongful dismissal (against the Second Respondent); direct pregnancy discrimination under s.18 Equality Act 2010 in respect of six of the ten pleaded allegations (against both Respondents jointly and severally); victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 in respect of County Court proceedings and threats of police action made after the Claimant contacted ACAS and presented her first claim (against both Respondents jointly and severally); unlawful deduction from wages limited to 10 days' unpaid holiday pay for September 2019 (against the Second Respondent); and failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under s.1 ERA 1996 (against the Second Respondent). Four of the pregnancy discrimination allegations and the remaining unlawful deduction allegations were dismissed.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing on 26 August 2021 to list a remedies hearing. The monetary figures appearing in the Layer 1 extract relate to items discussed in the body of the judgment rather than to any final award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Against the Second Respondent. Automatic unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA 1996 and reg.20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, and unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996. Remedies to be determined at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) against the Second Respondent. Remedies deferred. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Direct discrimination because of pregnancy under s.18 Equality Act 2010 against both Respondents jointly and severally, upheld in respect of complaints 1, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Complaints 2, 3, 4 and 6 were dismissed. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | Section 27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation against both Respondents jointly and severally. Protected acts: contacting ACAS and presenting the first claim. Detriments: County Court claim against the Claimant, threats of police action, and County Court claim against the Claimant's boyfriend. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld against the Second Respondent only in respect of 10 days' holiday pay for September 2019. Other unlawful deduction allegations were not pursued at the hearing and were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 20 Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.