Case 3206908/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Preston (née Humphreys) v Blossoms Nursery Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3206908/2021
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Members
- Panel members
- Ms Y Fisher, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Preston (née Humphreys)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the East London Hearing Centre, by CVP on 22, 23 and 24 March 2023, the Employment Tribunal heard Mrs N Preston's claims against Blossoms Nursery Ltd and gave a unanimous judgment. The tribunal found that the claims of pregnancy and maternity discrimination were not made out and were dismissed. It also dismissed the claims of harassment by reason of pregnancy and maternity.
The tribunal upheld the remaining monetary claim, finding that the respondent had failed to pay in whole or in part an amount to which the claimant was entitled under section 56 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £236.12, described in the judgment as the amount due by reason of section 56.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Harassment | Harassment by reason of pregnancy and maternity. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | The judgment identifies this only as a failure to pay an amount due under section 56 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; it does not label the claim in any more specific taxonomy term. | Upheld | — | £236 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £236
- across all upheld claims
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.