Case 2600683/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Fisher v Montessori (Baby Unit) Limited and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600683/2020
- Decision date
- 15 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss R Fisher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat under Rule 21 with the first respondent not appearing. Claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed because the claimant withdrew them. The judgment therefore proceeded only against Montessori (Baby Unit) Limited, the first respondent.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded damages of £947.30. It also found that she had been unfairly dismissed, awarding a basic award of £1,705.40 and a compensatory award of £878.92.
The tribunal further held that the claimant was discriminated against because of her maternity/pregnancy, contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, and awarded £8,000 compensation. The judgment also records that the hearing listed for July 2021 was cancelled after judgment was entered.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages ordered against the first respondent in the sum of £947.30. | Upheld | — | £947 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,705.40 and a compensatory award of £878.92. | Upheld | — | £2,584 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found discrimination because of maternity/pregnancy contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010 and awarded £8,000 compensation. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £8,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,532
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,705
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £879
- 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.