Case 2406637/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Krystal CSG Ltd and C Thompson — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406637/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms B Macedo was treated unfavourably by Krystal CSG Limited and Carolyn Thompson because of her protected characteristic of pregnancy. The Section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim was found well-founded and was adjourned to a remedy hearing to be arranged when the claimant returned to England.
The tribunal also found that Ms Macedo was automatically unfairly dismissed by reason of pregnancy, with the claim under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded against the first respondent. It further found that she suffered an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered the first respondent to pay £301.63 net in unpaid wages.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The Section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim was found well-founded and adjourned to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed by reason of pregnancy; no remedy figure for this claim is stated in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay unpaid wages of £301.63 net. | Upheld | — | £302 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £302
- across all upheld claims
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.