Case 3301207/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Amanda Marquarite-Robinson (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301207/2022
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms M Harris, Ms P Barratt
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Amanda Marquarite-Robinson (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Mothercare Global Brand Ltd and was dismissed on 3 December 2021, with redundancy given as the reason. The tribunal found that the respondent wanted to replace the claimant with Chris Beeley and that the stated redundancy situation was a sham.
The tribunal found that changes to the claimant's role, the failure to inform her about changes while she was on maternity leave, the creation of the Head of Technical role, and the failure to offer suitable alternative employment amounted to unfavourable treatment while she was exercising the right to additional maternity leave. It held that the respondent had not shown that it did not contravene section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal dismissed the automatically unfair dismissal claim, finding that the principal reason for dismissal was not connected with the claimant's pregnancy or the fact that she availed herself of additional maternity leave. It also dismissed the sex discrimination claim because section 13 Equality Act 2010 did not apply to the treatment in light of the maternity discrimination findings.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 tribunal found the reason for dismissal was not a potentially fair reason and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was treated unfavourably because she was exercising the right to additional maternity leave. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal was dismissed; the tribunal did not find the principal reason for dismissal was connected with pregnancy or additional maternity leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination claim was dismissed because section 13 Equality Act 2010 did not apply to the treatment in light of Regulation 18(7) MAPLE and the tribunal's maternity discrimination findings. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Regulation 18(7) MAPLE
- Polkey
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.