Case 2301895/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Waters First v Pentins Financial Planning Limited Second Respondent: Mr John Hawkins — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301895/2016
- Decision date
- 10 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard
- Venue
- Ashford
- Panel members
- Mr D Ross, Ms R Downer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Waters First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Ashford on 8, 9 and 10 April 2019 before Employment Judge Pritchard with Mr D Ross and Ms R Downer. It dismissed the Second Respondent, Mr John Hawkins, from the proceedings. The Claimant’s direct sex discrimination claim was dismissed, and her victimisation claim against the First Respondent was also dismissed.
The tribunal found that the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was well-founded. It did not determine remedy at that hearing, stating that remedy would be considered at a further hearing if the parties were unable to reach settlement. It recorded that any compensatory award would be increased by 10% because of the First Respondent’s unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, and it made no deductions for contributory fault or under the Polkey principle.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent failed to provide a statement of employment particulars. That claim succeeded and the tribunal awarded two weeks' pay, although the extracted judgment text does not give a numeric figure for the award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Claim against the First Respondent dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the claim well-founded and deferred remedy to a further hearing if the parties could not settle. The tribunal said any compensatory award would be increased by 10% for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, made no deduction for contributory fault, and made no deduction under the Polkey principle. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claim that the Respondent failed to provide a statement of employment particulars succeeded. The tribunal awarded two weeks' pay, but the judgment extract does not state a numeric amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code of Practice
- Polkey principle
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.