Case 2216662/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Simon-Hart v Metlife Europe Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216662/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Langridge Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Simon-Hart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Simon-Hart worked for Metlife Europe Services Limited as Assistant General Counsel from 8 July 2019. She went on maternity leave on 6 February 2023, and the parties later entered into a settlement agreement dated 7 June 2023 under which her employment ended. The agreement provided for enhanced maternity pay and contractual pay up to termination, payment in lieu of notice of £30,750, residual statutory maternity pay of £1,478.40, and a severance payment of £61,500. The agreed payment date was 24 June 2023, and the tribunal recorded that the claimant ultimately received total payments and benefits in excess of £90,000.
The claimant later complained that the maternity pay had been underpaid by £2,831.01. The tribunal found that the shortfall arose from a payroll adjustment issue, including changes to the SMP rate and the parties' agreement to defer the termination date by seven days, and that the respondent paid the shortfall on 24 November 2023. Applying the Selkent principles, the tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her case to add claims based on the settlement agreement, statutory maternity pay, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. It treated those proposed matters as new claims, found they were raised late, and held that there was no evidential basis to extend time under the relevant statutory tests.
On the original ET1 claims, the tribunal struck out the equal pay claim, the pregnancy discrimination claim, the unfair dismissal claim and the breach of contract claim under Rule 37. It held that the equal pay allegation had no particulars and was out of time; that the pregnancy discrimination allegation was not supported by facts capable of showing the credit card investigation was because of pregnancy or maternity, and that the respondent's awareness of the card use on 9 March 2023 provided an innocent explanation for the timing; that the unfair dismissal claim could not succeed because the employment ended under the settlement agreement; and that the disciplinary procedure relied on was not contractual. The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim based on the settlement agreement because no such claim was outstanding on the 7 June 2023 termination date. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Claim that the claimant was paid less than white and/or male colleagues; the tribunal treated this as an equal pay claim and found that no particulars were provided and that it was out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim that she was investigated during maternity leave over company credit card use; the tribunal found no facts capable of supporting an inference that the investigation was because of pregnancy or maternity and held the claim time-barred. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim based on the termination of employment and the respondent's handling of matters around it; the tribunal held that employment ended under the settlement agreement so there was no dismissal, and in any event the claim was out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim based on the alleged failure to follow the disciplinary procedure and breach of trust and confidence; the tribunal held the disciplinary procedure was non-contractual and the claim was out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore principles
- Article 3(c) of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Article 7(c) of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37(1)(a) and (b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.