Case 3200827/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Abida Tahiya v Ms Elizabeth Antwi (trading as Morning Glory Pre-School) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200827/2024
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Member
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Daniels
Parties
2 namedMs Abida Tahiya
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Gardiner, sitting with member Ms M Daniels as a panel of two by consent, found that the claimant's complaints of automatic unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA 1996 and pregnancy discrimination under s.18 EqA 2010 were well founded and succeeded against the correct respondent (Ms Elizabeth Antwi trading as Morning Glory Pre-School). The tribunal also held that there was no proper legal basis for a claim against Morning Glory Holdings Limited.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal. The claimant was awarded £18,546.22 as compensation for pregnancy discrimination, comprising £11,000 injury to feelings, £6,142.19 past loss of earnings (including maternity allowance) and £1,404.03 interest at 8% per annum. The tribunal held that no further sums were awardable for automatic unfair dismissal.
In addition the claimant received an award of two weeks' gross salary (£708) under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for the respondent's failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars at the start of employment.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £18,546 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Upheld | — | £708 |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,546
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.