Case 3200652/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Roderique v Ldn Global Group Limited (In Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200652/2021
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Daniels, Mr L Bowman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Roderique
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Ms C Roderique established automatic unfair dismissal under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 of the Maternity Leave Regulations 1999, ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996, breach of regulation 10 of the Maternity and Paternal Regulations 1999, discrimination on grounds of pregnancy and maternity leave under section 18 Equality Act 2010, discrimination on grounds of sex in selection for redundancy under section 13 Equality Act 2010, accrued holiday pay for 18 days under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and unpaid notice pay. The written record sets out the outcomes and remedy calculation; the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The remedy calculation recorded the claimant's date of birth as 10/08/1986, start of employment as 05/12/2016, effective date of termination as 14/11/2020, three years' continuous service, age 34 at the effective date of termination, respondent liquidation on 07/02/2022, a contractual notice period of 4.3 weeks, and net weekly pay at termination of £508.50. It listed a basic award of £1,614.00, damages for wrongful dismissal of £2,186.55, compensatory loss of £22,101.66 plus loss of statutory rights of £400.00 and holiday pay of £2,319.30, giving a compensatory award before interest of £24,420.96, together with injury to feelings of £15,000.00 and interest of £1,375.75 on the compensatory award and £1,867.40 on the non-financial award. The total award ordered was £46,464.66.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 of the Maternity Leave Regulations 1999; the monetary award was not separately split between the dismissal heads. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under s.98(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996; the monetary award was not separately split between the dismissal heads. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Breach of regulation 10 of the Maternity and Paternal Regulations 1999, as written in the judgment; no separate monetary split was given. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Discrimination on grounds of pregnancy and maternity leave under section 18 Equality Act 2010; the award was included within the overall non-financial award and not separately split. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Discrimination on grounds of sex in selection for redundancy under section 13 Equality Act 2010; the award was included within the overall non-financial award and not separately split. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay for 18 days under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the remedy calculation lists £2,319.30. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £46,465
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,614
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £24,421
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 20 Maternity Leave Regulations 1999
- s.98(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 10 Maternity and Paternal Regulations 1999
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.