Case 2302917/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Alani neè Ellis-Hill v Novadiscovery SA — 2026
- Case reference
- 2302917/2022
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Alani neè Ellis-Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability hearing on 27 April 2026, the respondent did not attend. Employment Judge Yardley struck out the respondent’s response to the complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination and victimisation under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment recorded that, under Rule 22, the effect was as if no response had been presented.
The tribunal found the claimant’s complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010 well-founded and successful. It also found the complaint of victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010 well-founded and successful. No remedy was determined in this liability judgment; remedy was reserved for a hearing on 20 May 2026.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint under section 18 Equality Act 2010 was found well-founded and succeeded; remedy was reserved to a later hearing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was found well-founded and succeeded; remedy was reserved to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 22
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.