Case 2300994/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Baker-Lacey v Pami Bains on behalf of Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Heard — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300994/2022
- Decision date
- 2 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Baker-Lacey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, Pami Bains was dismissed from the proceedings. The judgment records no findings on the merits against that respondent.
The Claimant's holiday pay and/or deductions from wages claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. The claims for pregnancy/maternity discrimination, constructive unfair dismissal and notice pay were recorded as proceeding against Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims for holiday pay and/or deductions from wages are dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims for holiday pay and/or deductions from wages are dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that this claim proceeds against Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; it does not adjudicate the merits. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that constructive unfair dismissal proceeds against Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; it does not adjudicate the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that notice pay proceeds against Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; it does not adjudicate the merits. | Other | — | — |
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.