Case 2404419/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Llewelyn v UK Industrial Controls Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404419/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms K Fulton, Ms B Hillon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Llewelyn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, relying on a number of alleged acts including risk assessment issues, lone working, appraisal and training matters, handling of a complaint about lunches, requests for maternity documents and task lists, changes to dog-at-work arrangements, software and file access issues, reassigned tasks, and misconduct charges.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not proved that the alleged treatment was because of pregnancy. In relation to the misconduct allegation, it accepted the respondent's evidence that the suspension and disciplinary investigation were pursued because of matters identified in the respondent's initial investigation, not because of the claimant's pregnancy.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant did not succeed in her claims. Because all claims were dismissed, the listed remedy hearing was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of pregnancy. No remedy was awarded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 section 18
- Selkent Bus Company
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.