Case 2415697/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sarah Price Second Claimant: Ms Melanie Howarth Third Claimant : Mr Kevin McManus First v Jean Price Natural Health Foods Limited Second Respondent: Jean Price — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415697/2020
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sarah Price Second Claimant: Ms Melanie Howarth Third Claimant : Mr Kevin McManus First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester, before Employment Judge Mark Butler, dismissed Ms Price's pregnancy or maternity discrimination claim against both respondents. It held that the claim was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Ms Price succeeded in her remaining claims against the first respondent for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unpaid holiday pay, unauthorised deductions from wages, failure to provide written reasons for dismissal under s.92 ERA 1996, and failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The judgment awarded her £1,090 basic award and £5,886.70 compensatory award for unfair dismissal, £1,046.40 for wrongful dismissal, £266.83 holiday pay, £348.80 for unauthorised deductions with a 25% ACAS uplift, and £356.40 each for the two statement claims. The judgment states Ms Price's total award as £9,354.53, although the listed components add to £9,351.53.
Ms Howarth and Mr McManus also succeeded against the first respondent on unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, and the two written-statement claims. Ms Howarth was awarded £3,034.08 basic award and £595.78 compensatory award for unfair dismissal, £1,774.68 for wrongful dismissal, £855.44 for holiday pay with a 25% ACAS uplift, and £674.24 each for the written-reasons and written-particulars claims, giving a stated total of £7,608.46. Mr McManus was awarded £6,803.49 for unfair dismissal, £2,430.72 for wrongful dismissal, £970.12 for holiday pay with a 25% ACAS uplift, and £821.08 each for the written-reasons and written-particulars claims; the judgment also makes preparation time orders of £328 to Ms Price and £820 to Mr McManus. The written judgment included an interest notice stating an 8% stipulated rate if sums were unpaid after 14 days, but no separate quantified interest award.
Claims and outcomes
17 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Ms Price; claim brought against both respondents. The tribunal held it was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ms Price; against the first respondent. Basic award £1,090 and compensatory award £5,886.70, giving a total unfair dismissal award of £6,976.70. The judgment states Ms Price's overall total award as £9,354.53, although the listed components add to £9,351.53. | Upheld | — | £6,977 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Ms Price; against the first respondent. Awarded 12 weeks' net pay at £87.20 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,046 |
| Holiday pay | Ms Price; against the first respondent. Awarded gross holiday pay of £266.83, with a 25% uplift referred to in the judgment because of ACAS Code of Practice non-compliance. | Upheld | — | £267 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms Price; against the first respondent. Awarded £348.80 gross, calculated as four weeks at £69.76 with a 25% uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice. | Upheld | — | £349 |
| Other | Ms Price; against the first respondent. Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal under section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; awarded four weeks' gross pay. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,957
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,819
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,591
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable extension of time
- s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice uplift
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.