Case 2601210/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Creasey v VPS PVT Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601210/2021
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Lincoln Magistrates Court
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Creasey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's response had already been dismissed on 31 October 2022 for failure to comply with unless orders. At the remedy hearing on 15 February 2023 before Employment Judge Welch sitting alone, the tribunal applied rules 21 and 28 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and proceeded on the basis that no response had been presented.
Judgment was entered for the claimant on the pleaded liability claims. The tribunal found that she had been unfairly dismissed; that the respondent discriminated against her because of sex and/or pregnancy and maternity by failing to carry out a pregnancy-related health and safety risk assessment, refusing to suspend her on maternity grounds, and dismissing her; that she was victimised by the failure to pay wages on 1 April 2021 and by dismissal; and that her claims for holiday pay, breach of contract notice pay, and unlawful deductions from wages succeeded.
On remedy, the tribunal accepted the claimant as honest and credible. It found her weekly pay was £141.60 and awarded a basic award of £566.40 and a compensatory award of £400 for unfair dismissal, together with £84.92 for holiday pay, £708.00 for unlawful deductions, and £566.40 for notice pay. It found that earnings losses ended when her maternity leave ended on 29 April 2022 because she would not have returned to work due to childcare costs, so there was no further loss of earnings award for discrimination or unfair dismissal. For discrimination, the tribunal made a global injury to feelings award of £15,000 in the middle Vento band, awarded no separate sum for victimisation, applied a 25% ACAS uplift of £4,189.83, and awarded interest of £2,307.95 on the injury to feelings award from 15 March 2021 to 15 February 2023, producing a total gross award of £23,823.50.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The unfair dismissal award comprised a basic award of £566.40 and a compensatory award of £400; no further earnings loss was awarded beyond the end of maternity leave. | Upheld | — | £966 |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found discrimination because of sex and/or pregnancy and maternity by failing to carry out a pregnancy-related health and safety risk assessment, refusing to suspend the claimant on maternity grounds, and dismissing her. A global injury to feelings award was made across the discrimination findings. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found discrimination because of sex and/or pregnancy and maternity by failing to carry out a pregnancy-related health and safety risk assessment, refusing to suspend the claimant on maternity grounds, and dismissing her. A global injury to feelings award was made across the discrimination findings. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found victimisation in relation to failing to pay wages on 1 April 2021 and dismissing the claimant. No separate monetary sum was identified for victimisation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay succeeded. The award was £84.92. | Upheld | — | £85 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £23,824
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £566
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £400
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rules 21 and 28 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Joint Presidential Guidance on Vento bands
- s.207A TULR(C)A
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.