Case 2600171/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Fletcher v The Rectory Chesterfield Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600171/2023
- Decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Fletcher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the Employment Judge determined the claim and found that the claimant, Miss E Fletcher, had been unfairly dismissed by The Rectory Chesterfield Ltd.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal ordered a basic award of £491 and a compensatory award of £190. The judgment does not set out any further reasoning in the extracted text beyond the default judgment process and the outcome reached under Rule 21.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had discriminated against the claimant on grounds relating to intended maternity leave. The judgment awards £20,000 compensation for that discrimination. The total awarded was £20,681, and the hearings listed for 13 April 2023 and 2 to 4 September 2024 were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £491 and a compensatory award of £190. | Upheld | — | £681 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the respondent discriminated against the claimant on grounds connected with intended maternity leave; the extracted text is awkwardly phrased but the apparent meaning is discrimination relating to maternity leave. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £20,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,681
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £491
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £190
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.