Case 3313273/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Paulina Bawej v Huangs Grill Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313273/2019
- Decision date
- 20 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Members
- Venue
- Watford Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr I Bone, Ms N Duncan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Paulina Bawej
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 31 August 2021 and 1 September 2021, the respondent conceded the claimant's breach of contract claim in respect of her notice period. The judgment then recorded that Miss Paulina Bawej had been discriminated against on the grounds of her pregnancy, in breach of s18 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The respondent conceded this claim at the outset of the hearing in respect of the claimant's notice period; the judgment does not record a separate numbered determination or remedy for it. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of her pregnancy, in breach of s18 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of her pregnancy, in breach of s99 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s18 Equality Act 2010
- s99 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.