Case 2415539/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Y Lewis v Aim Habonim and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415539/2020
- Decision date
- 21 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Y Lewis
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ross sitting alone. The tribunal found that Mrs Y Lewis was employed by the first respondent as an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) and 230(2) Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear her claims that she was automatically unfairly dismissed pursuant to sections 99 and 104 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also held that it had jurisdiction to hear claims that she was discriminated against by reason of pregnancy and/or maternity pursuant to the Equality Act 2010.
The judgment does not determine the merits of the dismissal or discrimination claims. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal found the claimant was an employee and that it had jurisdiction to hear her automatic unfair dismissal claims under ss.99 and 104 ERA 1996. The merits of the dismissal claim were not decided in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear claims that the claimant was discriminated against by reason of pregnancy and/or maternity under the Equality Act 2010. The merits of the discrimination claim were not decided in this judgment. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.99 ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
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.