Case 3200861/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M. de Dominicis v Ann Hood t/a Ann’s Smart School of Cookery — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200861/2021
- Decision date
- 3 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr L. Bowman, Ms B. Leverton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M. de Dominicis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt East London Hearing Centre, Employment Judge Massarella sitting with Mr L. Bowman and Ms B. Leverton recorded the liability judgment on 3 June 2024. The claim of automatically unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment also records mixed findings on the direct pregnancy discrimination issues under s.18 EqA 2010: issues 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9 and 1.11 succeeded, while issues 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 and 1.10 failed.
Issue 1.8 was left to be determined, and the holiday pay claim was not finally determined in the extracted liability judgment. The tribunal also upheld the claim of harassment related to sex under s.26 EqA 2010 and dismissed the victimisation claims under s.27 EqA 2010.
The Claimant succeeded on the automatically unfair dismissal claim related to pregnancy under s.99 ERA 1996. In the alternative, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996 also succeeded. No monetary remedy figure is recorded in the extracted text, which is a liability judgment only.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim of automatically unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA 1996 (health and safety cases) was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Direct pregnancy discrimination under s.18 EqA 2010 succeeded on issues 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9 and 1.11. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Direct pregnancy discrimination under s.18 EqA 2010 failed on issues 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 and 1.10; issue 1.8 was left to be determined separately. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Harassment | The claim of harassment related to sex under s.26 EqA 2010 succeeded. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claims under s.27 EqA 2010 failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Claimant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal related to pregnancy under s.99 ERA 1996 succeeded. | Upheld |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.100 ERA 1996
- s.18 EqA 2010
- s.26 EqA 2010
- s.27 EqA 2010
- s.99 ERA 1996
- ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996
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.