Case 3205908/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Leitch v CIS Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205908/2021
- Decision date
- 25 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter Members
- Panel members
- Ms S Harwood, Dr J Ukemenam
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Leitch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous judgment of the tribunal was given after a remote CVP hearing on 6, 7 and 25 October 2022 before Employment Judge Porter, sitting with Ms S Harwood and Dr J Ukemenam. The tribunal found that Miss C Leitch was dismissed, that her claim under s99 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded, and that her claim under s18 Equality Act 2010 was well-founded.
No compensation was ordered for the s99 claim. For the s18 claim, the tribunal ordered compensation totalling £14,884.90, comprising financial loss of £791.86, a 25% uplift of £197.96, interest of £55.22, injury to feelings of £10,000, a further 25% uplift of £2,500.00, and interest of £1,339.86. The judgment also records that the recoupment regulations do not apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under s99 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found it was well-founded and recorded that the claimant was dismissed, but made no compensation order for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim under s18 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal ordered compensation in the total sum of £14,884.90, comprising financial loss of £791.86, a 25% uplift of £197.96, interest of £55.22, injury to feelings of £10,000, a further 25% uplift of £2,500.00, and interest of £1,339.86. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £14,885 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,885
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £792
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s18 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.