Case 2212724/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Maxted v No Ordinary Designer Label Ltd (in Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2212724/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Panel members
- Mr R Baber, Mr S Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Maxted
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central on 1 July 2024, before Employment Judge E Burns with Mr R Baber and Mr S Williams, the tribunal recorded that Ms N Maxted's complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination and unfair dismissal succeeded. Her claim for a protective award was dismissed, and the respondent, No Ordinary Designer Label Limited (in administration), did not appear.
The tribunal awarded £39,607.29 for past losses to the date of hearing, £2,270.09 interest on past losses, £25,000 for injury to feelings, £2,865.75 interest on injury to feelings, £25,612.86 for six months' future losses, and £6,901 grossing up. The total award recorded in the judgment was £102,076.25. The extract does not allocate the award separately between the successful claims, and the stated component figures do not exactly reconcile to the recorded total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination succeeded. The judgment does not separate the award between the successful claims. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The judgment does not separate the award between the successful claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Protective award claim dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £102,076
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £65,220
- 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.