Case 2602214/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Bidnell-Edwards, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602214/2021
- Decision date
- 28 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr N Bidnell-Edwards, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Daniella Stamper brought unfair dismissal, pregnancy/maternity discrimination and disability discrimination claims arising from her dismissal as a Design Manager on 30 April 2021. The disability relied on was auto-immune hepatitis. The respondent's position was that the dismissal was for redundancy and that it denied any dismissal because of disability, maternity leave, or a desire to dismiss because she might have another child.
This was a closed preliminary hearing concerned with case management rather than the merits. The claimant accepted that Belfield Furnishings Ltd was the correct respondent, so the claim against Belfield Group Ltd was dismissed upon withdrawal and the proceedings continued against Belfield Furnishings Ltd. No liability findings were made on the substantive claims at this hearing.
The judge dealt with the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications and explained that the matter would proceed by way of Judicial Mediation. The order listed Judicial Mediation for 25 May 2022, stayed the outstanding directions pending that process, and recorded that the respondent later withdrew the strike-out applications after the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | No merits determination at this hearing; the claim against the first respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal and the proceedings continued against the second respondent. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | No merits determination at this hearing; the claim against the first respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal and the proceedings continued against the second respondent. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Disability discrimination | No merits determination at this hearing; the disability relied on was auto-immune hepatitis, and the claim against the first respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal while the proceedings continued against the second respondent. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 39(1) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 56 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.