Case 3200827/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Stowe v Stobart Air Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200827/2020
- Decision date
- 27 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms S Jeary, Mr P Quinn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Stowe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Stowe presented two ET1s in March and May 2020 alleging unfair constructive dismissal, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, and statutory breaches concerning health and safety and alternative work. The respondent denied the claims in ET3s, later entered voluntary liquidation on 2 July 2021, and did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal declined to enter default judgment because the ET3s had defended the claims, and proceeded under rule 47 on the material available.
The tribunal found that Ms Stowe resigned on 19 February 2020 and that her claims were well founded. It expressly upheld unfair constructive dismissal, found indirect sex discrimination, and recorded that the claims under the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 were well founded. It also found failures to offer suitable alternative work under section 67 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to provide alternative work under section 70(4), and to carry out a risk assessment contrary to regulation 61 of the Management and Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The first ET1 also pleaded pregnancy and maternity discrimination, but the written reasons do not separately identify a distinct finding on that head.
On remedy, the tribunal limited loss to 2 July 2021, when the respondent went into voluntary liquidation. It awarded a basic award of £415.38, compensatory loss of £4,578.37 before interest, and £18,000 for injury to feelings, with interest under the compensation calculation and a total award of £25,670.81. The injury to feelings award was placed in the mid band of the Vento guidance, and the reasons record that Ms Stowe was driven to resign after not being accommodated having just given birth.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 19 February 2020 and succeeded in unfair constructive dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The first ET1 pleaded pregnancy and maternity discrimination, but the written reasons do not separately identify a distinct outcome on that head. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal expressly found indirect sex discrimination and said the claimant was driven to resign after not being accommodated having just given birth. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Other | Claims under the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 were found well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to offer suitable alternative work contrary to section 67 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide alternative work pursuant to section 70(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to carry out a risk assessment contrary to regulation 61 of the Management and Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,671
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £415
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,578
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Vento guidance
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.