Case 2301011/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Vaughan v Best Risk Management and Financial Service Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301011/2024
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Cowen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Vaughan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, and unlawful deduction of wages. It also dismissed the pregnancy and maternity discrimination allegations identified as paragraphs 15(a) to 15(m) of the Agreed List of Issues.
The tribunal found that the maternity discrimination allegations identified as paragraphs 15(n) and 15(o) were not brought within the statutory time limit, but ruled that it would be just and equitable for those allegations to proceed. Those maternity discrimination allegations were found to be well founded and succeeded. The written judgment records the outcome only, with oral reasons having been given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was ill-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment dismisses the pregnancy and maternity discrimination allegations in paragraphs 15(a) to 15(m) of the Agreed List of Issues. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the maternity discrimination allegations in paragraphs 15(n) and 15(o) were brought out of time but were allowed to proceed on just and equitable grounds, and were well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the direct sex discrimination claim was ill-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unlawful deduction of wages claim was ill-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 18 of the Equality Act 2010
- statutory time limit
- just and equitable
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.