Case 3306125/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Natalia Meade v Care UK Community Partnerships Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3306125/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Natalia Meade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing concerned whether the Claimant's claims should be struck out for lack of jurisdiction or procedural irregularity. The Claimant had been named as a second claimant on Ms Boddy's claim form, but there were no details of Ms Meade's case on that form and she had not obtained her own ACAS early conciliation certificate.
The Tribunal held that the victimisation complaint was not the same dispute or matter as Ms Boddy's claim, because Ms Boddy had not brought a victimisation claim. The Tribunal therefore had no discretion to waive the failure to obtain an early conciliation certificate for that complaint, and struck it out.
The Tribunal found that the pregnancy discrimination complaints were the same dispute as Ms Boddy's pregnancy discrimination claim, as both concerned treatment during pregnancy at Highmarket House and included overlapping allegations about heavy lifting and work on dementia wards. It therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear the pregnancy discrimination complaint, despite the absence of an ACAS early conciliation certificate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction under section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The Tribunal decided only that it had jurisdiction to hear the pregnancy discrimination complaint under s.18 Equality Act 2010; the merits and any remedy were not determined in the provided judgment text. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- rule 9 Tribunal Rules
- rule 6 Tribunal Rules
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Clark [2023] EWCA Civ 386
- Brierley and others v Asda Stores Ltd (No 2) [2019] ICR 910
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.