Case 2411149/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Bailey v R1 Jon Janvier R2 Energy Saving Installers Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411149/2021
- Decision date
- 2 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr J Murdie, Mr A Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Bailey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Liverpool hearing on 22 and 23 November 2022, the tribunal found that Miss E Bailey was dismissed by Mr Jon Janvier because she took maternity leave. Her automatically unfair dismissal claim under Section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, and her maternity discrimination claim under Section 18(4) Equality Act 2010 also succeeded on the same factual basis. The tribunal noted that, by reason of TUPE, she had two years and two months' service at the time of dismissal and could have pursued an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint.
The victimisation complaint under Section 27 Equality Act 2010 failed. The claimant relied on the absence of a reference, but the tribunal found that she could not prove why the reference was not provided, and that the respondent's silence was not enough to establish a prima facie case.
On remedy, Mr Janvier was ordered to pay £19,728.16 after deduction of £1,200 previously paid on 29 May 2021. The award included £8,664 net loss of earnings for 18 June 2021 to 1 February 2022, calculated at four-fifths of pay because the claimant wanted to return four days a week, plus £989.35 interest. It also included £9,000 for injury to feelings at the top end of the lower Vento band, £1,027.73 interest on that award, £997.08 holiday pay for 21 days, and £250 for loss of statutory rights in unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under Section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found she was dismissed because she took maternity leave and noted that TUPE gave her two years and two months' service. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because she took maternity leave. The award comprised loss of earnings, interest, injury to feelings, and interest on injury to feelings. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £19,681 |
| Victimisation | The claim failed because the claimant could not prove why a reference was not provided; the respondent's silence was not enough to establish a prima facie case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as 21 days' holiday pay (15 days for 2021 plus 6 carried over); the written judgment did not separately label this in the liability section. | Upheld | — | £997 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,728
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 18(4) Equality Act 2010
- Section 27 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.