Case 3307073/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Hayley Bates v A.S.H Elite Equine Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307073/2022
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bunting Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hayley Bates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the TUPE consultation claim because it was presented out of time and it found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time under Reg 15 of the TUPE Regulations. The tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim.
The tribunal held that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the principal reason for dismissal related to pregnancy and maternity. It also found discrimination and made an injury to feelings award of £12,500, inclusive of interest.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £1,088 for the unfair dismissal, £7,807.66 for loss of wages to the remedies hearing, £18,600 for loss of accommodation and stabling, £897.26 for loss of pension contributions, £500 for loss of statutory rights, £6,089.98 for future loss of net wages, and £2,717.91 for unpaid accrued holiday entitlement. It also found the section 13 ERA 1996 unlawful deductions claim well founded and applied a 10% uplift of £4,911.27 under section 124A ERA 1996 because the respondent failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, producing a total award of £55,112.08.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The claim relating to failure to consult during a TUPE transfer was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time under Reg 15 TUPE Regulations, so it dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the principal reason for dismissal related to pregnancy and maternity. | Upheld | — | £1,088 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment refers to 'the discrimination found' and awards £12,500 inclusive of interest for injury to feelings. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £12,500 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the section 13 ERA 1996 claim well founded because the respondent failed to pay the full wages properly payable to the claimant, but the numbered decision does not allocate a separate sum to this head beyond the holiday entitlement award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's accrued and untaken holiday entitlement of 29 days, calculated at a weekly rate of £468.46 net, and ordered payment of £2,717.91. | Upheld | — | £2,718 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £55,112
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Reg 15 TUPE Regulations
- section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 124A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.