Case 2601139/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Callahan v The Grovecare (UK) Limited REMEDY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601139/2022
- Decision date
- 12 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Callahan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remedy hearing in Nottingham on 9 August 2022, Employment Judge Camp rejected the respondent’s response presented on 1 August 2022 under rule 18(1), refused the respondent’s application for an extension of time to present a response, and refused its application for a postponement. The earlier rule 21 judgment of Employment Judge Ahmed dated 26 July 2022 therefore stood.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The rule 21 judgment found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The remedy order awarded a basic award of £427.68 and a compensatory award of £2,000. | Upheld | — | £2,428 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The rule 21 judgment found the respondent discriminated against the claimant because of sex and/or pregnancy and maternity by failing to carry out a pregnancy-related health and safety risk assessment, failing to permit or facilitate her return to work after maternity leave working 16 to 24 hours per week, and constructively dismissing her. The discrimination damages were assessed as a single sum of £8,641.52, with interest separately awarded. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £8,642 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,302
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £428
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 18(1)
- rule 21
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.