Mrs R Nalam v Our Retail Limited — 2023

The respondent did not file a response and did not attend the telephone hearing, so the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It also recorded that the claim was in time, that the claimant's short service did not bar the automatically unfair dismissal claim, and that a name mismatch between the claim form and ACAS certificate had previously been treated as a minor error under Rule 12(2A).

On the merits, the tribunal found that Our Retail Limited discriminated against Mrs R Nalam because of pregnancy, contrary to s39(2) and s18 Equality Act 2010. It also found that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed under s99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed without adequate notice contrary to s86 Employment Rights Act 1996, but said the losses arising from the dismissal were already compensated within the discrimination award.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's schedule of loss and awarded £35,179.54 for discrimination, made up of past and future loss, injury to feelings and interest on the calculations set out in the reasons. It also awarded £242 for 2.8 days' accrued holiday, £1,075.40 for failure to provide written particulars under s1 Employment Rights Act 1996, and £537.70 for failure to provide written reasons under s92 Employment Rights Act 1996. In addition, it ordered £950.40 costs because of the respondent's unreasonable conduct, and stated that unpaid sums would carry interest at 8% per annum, or £8.33 per day if the full award remained unpaid after 14 days.