Ms E Thomson v Represented by: Ben McKinlay, Thompsons Incovo Limited st and 2 others — 2026

Ms E Thomson's ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded against Incovo Limited. Her claims of automatic unfair dismissal, pregnancy and maternity detriment, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and direct sex discrimination were dismissed. She had worked for the company since January 2018 and became Helpdesk Manager. Following maternity leave from March to August 2023 and accrued annual leave, she was due to return on 6 November 2023. Her employment ended on 30 November 2023.

The tribunal found that redundancy was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. Client enquiries increasingly went directly to IT engineers, invoicing had become almost entirely automated, and the company had lost clients and income. Managing Director Christopher Thomas had covered the claimant's work during her absence and sought HR advice about redundancy on 20 September 2023, before she disclosed her second pregnancy on 19 October. She was not replaced. His discovery during maternity leave that little of her role remained did not establish that dismissal was because of pregnancy or the exercise of maternity rights. The section 99 claim therefore failed.

Redundancy was a potentially fair reason, but the dismissal failed the reasonableness requirement under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The company pursued a settlement after receiving advice about both settlement and redundancy consultation. When negotiations stalled, it dismissed the claimant without following a fair redundancy process. She learned of her dismissal after querying her reduced pay on 30 November. She had no opportunity to ask questions, make representations or appeal. The tribunal found no exceptional circumstances excusing the lack of process and found that the company could have continued paying her during consultation.

The section 47C detriment allegations failed because the treatment was not for a prescribed pregnancy or maternity reason. Being told on 20 October that her role was redundant was a detriment, but the pregnancy announcement changed the timing of the conversation rather than the decision. The tribunal was not satisfied that her 15 November email raised a grievance in the commonly understood sense. It nevertheless found a narrower detriment in the refusal to improve the settlement offer, which reflected the amount the company was prepared to pay. The failure to consult was unfair, but arose from the respondents' view that dismissal was inevitable and their wish to conclude matters, rather than her pregnancy or anticipated maternity leave.

For the section 18 discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that notifying the claimant of redundancy the day after her pregnancy announcement supplied primary facts suggesting a connection. The respondents discharged the resulting burden of proof through their evidence about the business and the earlier redundancy assessment. The claimant did not establish primary facts linking the response to her November email, the failure to consult or her dismissal to pregnancy. The tribunal also found that the respondents' evidence would have discharged the burden on those allegations had it shifted.