Case 2303898/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr McEvoy (Claimant’s partner) For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303898/2018
- Decision date
- 9 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms Bharadia, Dr Fernando
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr McEvoy (Claimant’s partner) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs McEvoy told the respondent she was pregnant in May 2017 and went on maternity leave in November 2017. Before her return, she exchanged texts with Mr Blackmore about working 1.5 days and then 2 days per week. The tribunal found she reasonably understood that arrangement had been agreed, and that Mr Blackmore never told her before the return-to-work meeting that the business had changed so much that part-time working would no longer be possible.
The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence about the 23 August 2018 meeting and preferred the handwritten notes over the later typed notes produced by the respondent. It found the typed notes were not an accurate record, that they misleadingly suggested Mr Tibble had attended and taken notes, and that Mr Blackmore did not tell the claimant she had to return full time or that failure to do so would end her employment. The letter of 6 September 2018 was found to be a dismissal letter, not simply a note wishing her well during maternity leave.
On liability, the tribunal held that the dismissal and related treatment were because the claimant was on maternity leave, so the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim succeeded. The late-added s.99 ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal claim also succeeded on the same factual basis. The sex discrimination claim was not pursued separately once the tribunal applied s.18(7) Equality Act 2010. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages failed for lack of evidence, while holiday pay for accrued but untaken leave was upheld and the tribunal also found dismissal without notice, entitling the claimant to notice pay in breach of contract.
On remedy, the tribunal calculated a gross weekly wage of £640.72 and a net weekly wage of £484. It awarded a basic award of £508, loss of earnings of £25,652, pension loss of £1,282.60, loss of statutory rights of £300, and injury to feelings of £12,000 in the middle Vento band. The written reasons state a compensatory award of £33,211.54 and a total award of £45,795.74, although the final calculations section contains an internal inconsistency on the holiday-pay figure used and the arithmetic leading to the total.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was treated unfavourably by misrepresenting the 23 August 2018 return-to-work meeting and by the letter dated 6 September 2018 dismissing her because she was on maternity leave. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal allowed an amendment during the hearing to add the s.99 ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal claim, treating it as a relabelling exercise on the facts already before it. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said it was not provided with evidence sufficient to make any finding about alleged unauthorised deductions for work done during maternity leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was owed accrued but untaken annual leave up to 6 September 2018. The written reasons contain an internal inconsistency on the holiday-pay figure used in the final calculations. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal did not go on to consider direct sex discrimination separately because s.18(7) Equality Act 2010 meant the same act could not also be found to be sex discrimination once maternity discrimination was upheld. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £45,796
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £508
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £33,212
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Ladbrokes Racing Ltd v Traynor
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Interserve FM Ltd v Tuleikyte
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme
- s.99 ERA 1996 / reg. 20 Maternity and Parental Leave Etc Regulations 1999
- Vento guidelines
- Alexander v Home Office
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.