Case 2406409/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Topping v Stepping Stones Nursery (Hoddlesden) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2406409/2020
- Decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Panel members
- E Cadbury, I Frame
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Topping
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that Ms D Topping’s automatic unfair dismissal claim related to pregnancy was well-founded. It also found that she was subjected to detriment for the prescribed reason of pregnancy, and that she suffered unlawful discrimination because of her pregnancy.
The judgment also recorded two matters by consent. The respondent was to pay £76.64 gross in respect of holiday pay due at the termination of employment, and £314.16 gross in respect of unauthorised deductions from wages.
All matters as to remedy were then listed to be heard on 14 February 2022, so this liability judgment did not determine the unfair dismissal or discrimination compensation. The written judgment also included the standard interest notice applicable to any sums unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the automatic unfair dismissal claim related to pregnancy was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the claimant was subjected to detriment for the prescribed reason of pregnancy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant suffered unlawful discrimination because of her pregnancy. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the respondent was to pay the gross sum of £76.64 in respect of holiday pay due at the termination of employment. | Settled | — | £77 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the respondent was to pay the gross sum of £314.16 in respect of unauthorised deductions from wages. | Settled | — | £314 |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.