Case 3319593/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Saxton v Hethersett Old Hall School Limited (in liquidation) Interested party: McTear Williams & Wood Limited (liquidator) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3319593/2019
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Saxton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Brown recorded that the respondent had contravened the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the claimant's complaint of discrimination because of pregnancy and maternity. The judgment also upheld the claimant's complaint of indirect discrimination in relation to sex. The text does not set out the underlying facts or any separate remedy findings in the extracted decision.
The tribunal further declared the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, brought by reference to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to be well-founded. No monetary award, liability split, or compensation breakdown is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment declares a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the claimant's complaint of discrimination because of pregnancy and maternity. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment declares a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the claimant's complaint of indirect discrimination in relation to sex. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal, by reference to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, is well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.99 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.
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.