Case 2408089/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rowena Garvie First v Second Respondent: Poseidon Investments Limited Theoulla Haralambous — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408089/2022
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
- Panel members
- Dr Tirohl, Ms Howarth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rowena Garvie First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Liverpool CVP hearing on 1 February 2023, Employment Judge Anderson, sitting with Dr Tirohl and Ms Howarth, found that Miss Rowena Garvie First's claims of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of pregnancy and pregnancy discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 were well-founded. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out separate factual findings beyond that conclusion.
The tribunal ordered Poseidon Investments Limited and Theoulla Haralambous to pay the claimant damages on a joint and severable basis. The sum recorded in the written judgment is £11,159.38 inclusive of interest. The record does not split that amount between the two successful claims or identify separate elements of compensation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of pregnancy was well-founded. The award was not apportioned between this claim and the pregnancy discrimination claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of pregnancy discrimination under section 18 Equality Act 2010 was well-founded. The award was not apportioned between this claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,159
- 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.