Case 3205191/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Warner-Denny v Headwear (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205191/2021
- Decision date
- 23 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Warren Members
- Panel members
- Ms J Henry, Ms A Berry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Warner-Denny
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at the East London Hearing Centre via CVP on 12 and 13 January 2023, unanimously upheld the claimant's unfair constructive dismissal claim. It found that she was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal also upheld the section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim, finding that she was discriminated against during the protected period of her pregnancy.
The indirect sex discrimination claim was dismissed. The claim under sections 80F to 80H of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described as a failure to handle an application for flexible and part-time working, was also dismissed.
The unlawful deductions from wages claim succeeded, with the tribunal stating that the claimant was entitled to be compensated for sickness absence of up to 10 days. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded, and the tribunal held that she was entitled to one month's contractual notice pay. The extracted text does not state any quantified monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment described this as an unfair constructive dismissal claim and stated that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found discrimination during the protected period of pregnancy. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The indirect sex discrimination claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the claimant was entitled to be compensated for sickness absence of up to 10 days, but the extracted text does not state a quantified sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Flexible working | The claim under sections 80F to 80H of the Employment Rights Act 1996, concerning an application for flexible and part-time working, failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to one month's contractual notice pay, but the extracted text does not state the monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- sections 80F-H Employment Rights Act 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.