Case 2304083/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Solari-Bierne v ERSG Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304083/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Solari-Bierne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South, Employment Judge Heath heard the case over 23, 24, 25, 26, 30 June and 1 and 2 July 2025. Ms M Solari-Bierne brought claims against ERSG Limited for automatically unfair dismissal under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and reg. 20 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, pregnancy and maternity discrimination under s.18 Equality Act 2010, direct sex discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010, and detriment under s.47C Employment Rights Act 1996 and reg. 19 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999.
The tribunal held that each claim was not well-founded and dismissed them. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested; no award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and reg. 20 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy and maternity discrimination under s.18 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment phrase is 'direct sex, pregnancy and maternity discrimination (s.13 Equality Act 2010)'; extracted here as sex discrimination because s.13 covers sex discrimination, while pregnancy and maternity was separately pleaded under s.18. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Other | Detriment under s.47C Employment Rights Act 1996 and reg. 19 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. | 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.