Case 2405212/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms K Wright v Coupland Cavendish Ltd t/a Gowing Law Solicitors — 2020

Case reference: 2405212/2019
Decision date: 17 February 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Phil Allen
Venue: Manchester
Panel members: Mrs P J Byrne, Mr W Haydock

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms K Wright

Respondent

Coupland Cavendish Ltd t/a Gowing Law Solicitors

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the Manchester hearing on 4 February 2020, before Employment Judge Phil Allen with Mrs P J Byrne and Mr W Haydock, the tribunal held that Ms K Wright had been automatically unfairly dismissed. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was of a prescribed kind within section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal also upheld her discrimination complaint, finding that she had been discriminated against contrary to sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010. No separate remedy figures are recorded in the extracted judgment text.

A separate complaint under sections 92 and 93 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and did not succeed. The claim that she had not been provided with a statement required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This 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
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason for dismissal was of a prescribed kind within section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.	Upheld	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The tribunal found discrimination contrary to sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Other	The claimant's complaint under sections 92 and 93 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and did not succeed.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The claim that she was not provided with a statement required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.