Case 3327573/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Duncan v Miss L Beech — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327573/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Duncan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by Cloud Video Platform at Norwich on 12 February 2021 before Employment Judge Postle. Neither the claimant nor the respondent attended, and neither was represented.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims under the Equality Act 2010 for the protected characteristic of pregnancy, together with the claim for unlawful deduction of wages, were dismissed because they were no longer actively pursued given the claimant's non-appearance at the hearing. The judgment does not contain findings on the underlying merits of either claim.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim under the Equality Act 2010 relating to pregnancy. Dismissed because, when neither party attended the remote hearing on 12 February 2021, the claims were treated as no longer actively pursued following the claimant's non-appearance. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because, when neither party attended the remote hearing on 12 February 2021, the claim was treated as no longer actively pursued following the claimant's non-appearance. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.