Case 3307041/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Cook v TWRG Holdings Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307041/2022
- Decision date
- 18 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
- Panel members
- Ms C Grant, Mrs A Brosnan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Cook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Watford, sitting by CVP on 17 and 18 July 2023 before Employment Judge Maxwell with Ms C Grant and Mrs A Brosnan, dismissed Miss M Cook's claims of direct disability discrimination and pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The judgment states that neither discrimination claim was well-founded.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that claim to be well-founded and awarded the claimant a compensatory award of £624, described in the judgment as two weeks' net pay.
No basic award, interest, injury to feelings award, or separate breakdown beyond the £624 compensatory award is recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states the claim of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states the claim of pregnancy and maternity discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and awarded a compensatory award of £624, described as two weeks' net pay. | Upheld | — | £624 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £624
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £624
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.