Case 2500058/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Ridley v HB Kirtley t/a Queens Court Business Centre — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500058/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Members
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
- Panel members
- Mr S Carter, Ms D Winship
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Ridley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case of Ms S Ridley v HB Kirtley t/a Queens Court Business Centre was heard at Newcastle CFCTC on 11 and 12 October 2021 before Employment Judge Arullendran, with Mr S Carter and Ms D Winship sitting as members. Ms Ridley appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms A Kirtley.
By judgment dated 13 October 2021, the tribunal dismissed all three claims as not well-founded: automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and pregnancy related discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days, so the judgment itself records the outcomes but not the tribunal's detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim of unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim of pregnancy related discrimination contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.