Case 3311427/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Martha Nicholas Respondent 1 - Restoration Revival Fellowship (a company limited by guarantee) trading as Alpha and Omega Nursery 2 – Mr Genish Watson 3 – Mrs Faitha Nouichi v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 3311427/2023
- Decision date
- 11 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shrimplin
- Panel members
- Mrs J Hancock, Mr S Woodward
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs Martha Nicholas Respondent 1 - Restoration Revival Fellowship (a company limited by guarantee) trading as Alpha and Omega Nursery 2 – Mr Genish Watson 3 – Mrs Faitha Nouichi
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mrs Martha Nicholas's dismissal was not unfair within the terms of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Her unfair dismissal claim against Restoration Revival Fellowship, trading as Alpha and Omega Nursery, therefore failed and was dismissed.
The direct discrimination claims under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, brought on the grounds of age and sex against all three respondents, were found not well founded and dismissed. The wrongful dismissal claim against Respondent 1, based on an alleged breach of contract relating to notice, was also found not well founded and dismissed. Summary reasons were given orally on 11 June 2026; the written judgment records no monetary award or further factual findings.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim against Respondent 1 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The direct age discrimination claim against Respondents 1, 2 and 3 was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The direct sex discrimination claim against Respondents 1, 2 and 3 was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim against Respondent 1 concerned breach of contract relating to notice and was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.