Case 2413928/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Begley Respondent 1: St Joseph’s Preschool Nursery Limited v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2413928/2020
- Decision date
- 10 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Panel members
- Ms C Gallegher, Mr TD Wilson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms A Begley Respondent 1: St Joseph’s Preschool Nursery Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a unanimous judgment, the tribunal found that Ms Begley was treated unfavourably because of her pregnancy and that her claim under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded. The judgment does not record any other substantive liability findings.
Remedy was assessed at £13,000.76. That sum comprised agreed net loss of earnings of £1,558.88, injury to feelings of £9,000, interest of £1,260 and a 10% ACAS uplift of £1,181.88. The loss of earnings element was to be paid in the next payroll run, with lawful deductions for tax and national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was treated unfavourably because of pregnancy. The award comprised agreed loss of earnings of £1,558.88 net, injury to feelings of £9,000, interest of £1,260 and a 10% ACAS uplift of £1,181.88. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £13,001 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,001
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,559
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 18 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.