Case 2407302/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Monika Maczynska (1) Ms Monika Zaman (2) v Kidzstop Day Nursery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407302/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr N Williams, Mr I Frame
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Monika Maczynska (1) Ms Monika Zaman (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims at Manchester on 19, 20 and 21 February 2025 before Tribunal Judge Abigail Holt with Mr N Williams and Mr I Frame as the non-legal members. It unanimously found that both claimants were unfairly dismissed and that the unfair dismissal claims under s94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.
It also unanimously rejected the direct race discrimination claims. The judgment states that the claimants were not subject to less favourable treatment in the form of direct race discrimination as claimed, and those claims under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed.
No compensation was determined in this judgment. The remedy hearing was listed for one full day on 14 April 2025 to determine compensation, and the parties were directed to exchange updated schedules of loss, counter-schedules, and any supporting material before that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimants were unfairly dismissed and that the unfair dismissal claims pursuant to s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 were successful. The finding is made collectively for both claimants. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimants were not subject to less favourable treatment in the form of direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The finding is made collectively for both claimants. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
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.