Case 2304029/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Baverstock v Medichem Manufacturing Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304029/2017
- Decision date
- 11 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard
- Venue
- Ashford
- Panel members
- Ms P Fellows, Mr P Phillips
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Baverstock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Ashford on 9, 10 and 11 October 2019, before Employment Judge Pritchard sitting with Ms P Fellows and Mr P Phillips, the tribunal heard Miss T Baverstock's claims against Medichem Manufacturing Limited. The written record identifies the claims as pregnancy discrimination, detriment by reason of pregnancy, and failure to permit paid time off for ante-natal appointments.
The judgment states that those claims were dismissed in their entirety. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days, so the extracted text does not set out a detailed written explanation of the tribunal's reasoning or any separate remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Part of the tribunal's listed claims; dismissed in its entirety with the other claims. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim pleaded as detriment by reason of pregnancy; dismissed in its entirety with the other claims. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | Claim pleaded as failure to permit paid time off for ante-natal appointments; dismissed in its entirety with the other claims. | 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.