Case 2303459/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Huggett v University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303459/2022
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Reed
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr P Adkins, S Sheath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Huggett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London South on 7 to 11 April 2025 before Employment Judge MJ Reed with lay members Mr P Adkins and S Sheath. It heard claims by Mrs S Huggett against University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and dismissed each complaint. The claims dismissed were direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, detriment for taking time off for dependants under s57A Employment Rights Act 1996, victimisation, and constructive unfair dismissal.
The written record states that each complaint was not well-founded. It also records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint of direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Complaint of indirect sex discrimination; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Other | Complaint of being subject to detriment for taking time off for dependants pursuant to s57A Employment Rights Act 1996; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of constructive unfair dismissal; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.