Case 3200067/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Green v David Martin Group — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200067/2019
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr L Purewal, Mr M Rowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre on 29 January 2020 before Employment Judge McLaren, sitting with lay members Mr L Purewal and Mr M Rowe. Miss A Green appeared in person and David Martin Group was represented by Mr R Prais.
The tribunal unanimously decided that the claim for automatically unfair dismissal did not succeed and was dismissed. It also unanimously decided that the claim under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment record.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The published decision therefore records the outcomes, but not the tribunal's detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records this as a claim for automatically unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records this as a claim under s18 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.