Case 2600599/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Melanie Robinson v Jayne Wagstaff and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600599/2022
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Members
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
- Panel members
- Mrs J M Bonser, Mr C Goldson
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss Melanie Robinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Nottingham over 6-8 October 2023, unanimously found that the claim of pregnancy discrimination contrary to Section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded and succeeded. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Claimant £5,000 as compensation for injury to feelings, together with interest of £762.12.
The Tribunal further found that the Respondent had failed to provide the Claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment contrary to Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered compensation of 4 weeks' pay amounting to £1,538.48. The total sum payable by the Respondent to the Claimant was £7,300.60.
The judgment is a record of an attended hearing; reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested. The document does not set out detailed factual findings or legal analysis beyond the dispositive orders.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy discrimination contrary to s.18 Equality Act 2010 well-founded; £5,000 injury to feelings plus £762.12 interest. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £5,762 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment contrary to s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996; 4 weeks' pay awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,301
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 18 Equality Act 2010
- Section 1 Employment Rights Act 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.