Case 2408568/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Livesey v Slater and Gordon (UK) 1 Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408568/2020
- Decision date
- 21 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms B Hillon, Mr J Flynn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Livesey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Manchester on 3-4 June 2021 before Judge BJ Doyle, Ms B Hillon and Mr J Flynn. The claimant, Miss L Livesey, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written judgment records that the tribunal’s reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaints of pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal for a reason related to pregnancy were not well-founded. Both complaints were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
The short written record does not set out the tribunal’s detailed factual findings or legal reasoning beyond the conclusion that the complaints failed. The judgment therefore records the outcomes only, without any separate remedy findings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of pregnancy discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal for a reason related to pregnancy was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.