Case 2500983/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. N. Ameri Respondent Alison House Thornaby Limited v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500983/2024
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- Teesside Combined Court Centre
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms. N. Ameri Respondent Alison House Thornaby Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found Ms N. Ameri's unlawful deduction from wages complaint well-founded and ordered Alison House Thornaby Limited to pay £853.62 gross within 14 days, with the claimant responsible for any tax or national insurance. It also found that the respondent failed to provide adequate written reasons for dismissal while the claimant was pregnant under s.92(4) ERA 1996, or that the reasons given were inadequate and/or untrue, and ordered £418 gross under s.93 ERA 1996, described as two weeks' pay.
On pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the tribunal upheld the complaints that, during the protected period, the respondent dismissed the claimant on 28 February 2024 and forged a contract of employment in her name purportedly dated 1 January 2023. All other complaints of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy were dismissed.
The claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal found that she did not cause or contribute to her dismissal and that the respondent had not shown there was a chance she would have been dismissed fairly in any event. It also upheld the s.99 ERA 1996 complaint that the reason or principal reason for dismissal related to pregnancy, but dismissed the s.104 ERA 1996 complaint that dismissal was because the claimant asserted statutory rights.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared the unlawful deduction complaint well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £853.62 gross within 14 days; the claimant was responsible for any tax or national insurance. | Upheld | — | £854 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent unreasonably failed to provide written reasons for dismissal while the claimant was pregnant under s.92(4) ERA 1996, or that the reasons given were inadequate and/or untrue. It ordered £418 gross under s.93 ERA 1996, described as two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £418 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | During the protected period, the tribunal upheld the complaints that the respondent dismissed the claimant on 28 February 2024 and forged a contract of employment in her name purportedly dated 1 January 2023. All other complaints of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy were dismissed. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal found she did not cause or contribute to her dismissal and that the respondent had not shown there was a chance she would have been dismissed fairly in any event. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,272
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.92(4) ERA 1996
- s.93 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.