Case 3202555/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Knight v Dreamboys London Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3202555/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr L Bowman, Mr J Webb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Knight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs H Knight brought complaints against Dreamboys London Limited including automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and discrimination because of pregnancy or maternity leave under section 18 Equality Act 2010. The judgment records that both complaints were not well founded.
The tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint. It also dismissed the pregnancy or maternity discrimination complaints. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment extracted here.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996; it was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records complaints of discrimination because of pregnancy or maternity leave contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010; they were dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 18 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.