Case 2305891/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms GNQ First v Bombus Limited Second Respondent: Ms A Coward — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305891/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Clarke Members
- Panel members
- Ms L Lindsay, Mr P Adkins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms GNQ First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms GNQ was not an employee within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 between 4 September 2012 and 30 September 2019. It dismissed her wrongful dismissal and notice pay complaint against Bombus Limited because she had received her full notice pay entitlement. It also dismissed her complaint of an unpaid redundancy balance because she had received her full redundancy pay entitlement.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim concerning adoption leave was dismissed. The tribunal found that Ms GNQ was not dismissed because she took or sought to take adoption leave, or because Bombus Limited believed she was likely to take ordinary or additional adoption leave. The judgment referred to regulation 29(3)(a) of the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded. However, the tribunal found a 100% chance that Ms GNQ would have been fairly dismissed within the same timeframe in any event. It ordered Bombus Limited to pay a basic award of £1,012.50 and a compensatory award of £0. These were the sums payable after any deductions or uplifts.
The tribunal dismissed both direct and indirect sex discrimination claims against Bombus Limited and Ms A Coward as not well-founded. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment records the outcomes without setting out the detailed reasons for those discrimination decisions or the finding of ordinary unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim against Bombus Limited was dismissed because the claimant had received her full notice pay entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim against Bombus Limited was dismissed because the claimant had received her full redundancy pay entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal concerning adoption leave. The tribunal found that dismissal was not because the claimant took or sought to take adoption leave, or because Bombus Limited believed she was likely to take ordinary or additional adoption leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal. The tribunal found a 100% chance of fair dismissal within the same timeframe in any event. Bombus Limited was ordered to pay a basic award of £1,012.50 and a compensatory award of £0, after any deductions or uplifts. | Upheld | — | £1,013 |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination against both Bombus Limited and Ms A Coward was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,013
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,013
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 29(3)(a) of the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002
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.