Case 2301900/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Aimen v Biox Systems Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2301900/2022
- Decision date
- 8 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Tribunal
- Panel members
- C Lloyd-Jennings, R Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Aimen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mrs R Aimen was unfairly dismissed by Biox Systems Limited on 26 September 2023. It found that the principal reason was to remove someone perceived as a nuisance, which was not a fair reason and was not conduct as pleaded, and that the dismissal procedure was unfair. She was entitled to basic and compensatory awards without deductions. The Tribunal also found wrongful dismissal and held that she was owed statutory notice pay equal to 11 weeks’ salary.
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination was upheld in relation to the refusal to allow Mrs Aimen to return to work on 2 March 2023 and her dismissal on 26 September 2023. Harassment related to sex was upheld in relation to disciplinary proceedings commenced in August 2022 and the dismissal.
Following Mrs Aimen’s protected act on 19 July 2022, the Tribunal upheld victimisation in relation to the August 2022 disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal. It separately found that commencing the disciplinary action was a detriment because she had taken action relating to health and safety under s44(1)(A) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that Biox Systems Limited failed to account for accrued but untaken holiday at the end of employment. It upheld unlawful-deduction and breach-of-contract claims concerning payment of statutory sick pay instead of salary from 4 March to 1 April 2022 and from 24 August to 19 September 2022, and concerning a wrongful salary reduction from 10 August 2022 to 26 October 2023. It also found a breach of contract in the failure to reimburse one year of university fees incurred in academic year 2016/2017.
The Tribunal found a breach of Section 38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent did not provide an updated statement of particulars when Mrs Aimen reduced her hours to part time. Her flexible-working claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was out of time and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. Any other allegation in the list of issues not recorded as succeeding was dismissed as not well-founded.
The judgment did not quantify any award in money. It identified basic and compensatory unfair-dismissal awards, notice pay of 11 weeks’ salary, holiday pay, and sums arising from the wage and contract findings, but stated no component figures or total award; no injury-to-feelings or interest figure was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The principal reason for dismissal was not a fair reason and was not conduct as pleaded; the procedure was also unfair. Basic and compensatory awards were due without deductions, but no figures were stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant was owed statutory notice pay equal to 11 weeks’ salary, but no monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The upheld acts were refusing to allow the claimant to return to work on 2 March 2023 and dismissing her on 26 September 2023. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex was upheld in respect of disciplinary proceedings commenced in August 2022 and the dismissal on 26 September 2023. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Following the protected act on 19 July 2022, victimisation was upheld in respect of the August 2022 disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal on 26 September 2023. The judgment does not identify the protected characteristic underlying the protected act. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment under s44(1)(A) Employment Rights Act 1996 by commencing disciplinary action in August 2022 because she had taken action relating to health and safety. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s44(1)(A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 38 Employment Act 2002
- reasonably practicable time-limit test
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.