Case 4107866/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Members: Lorna Taylor Liz Farrell Ms A Jackson v Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4107866/2019
- Decision date
- 14 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Woolfson Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Lorna Taylor, Liz Farrell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members: Lorna Taylor Liz Farrell Ms A Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims arising from her attempted return to work after maternity leave. The tribunal found that the respondent sent letters in October 2018 to the only address it had for the claimant and tried to telephone her, but the claimant did not receive those communications because she had not provided an updated address and the respondent did not know her new telephone number. It also found that the claimant's later Gumtree and Facebook messages were not received, and that her solicitor's 24 April 2019 letter was not received by Yvonne Thompson while she was on sick leave.
The tribunal accepted that Ashley Gray responded promptly to the claimant's solicitor on 9 May 2019 and was trying to explain what she understood had happened and establish whether there had been other communications. It found that this was not a refusal to allow the claimant to return to work and was not a refusal to discuss her return. It also found that Ashley Gray did not receive the solicitor's email of 10 May 2019, that the claimant had not been permanently replaced, and that the P45 leaving date did not show an earlier decision to terminate employment.
On discrimination, the tribunal found that the alleged unfavourable or less favourable treatment did not occur, so the claimant had not proved a prima facie case. On constructive dismissal, it found no repudiatory breach and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. On the alternative direct dismissal case, it found that the respondent had not communicated or implied an unequivocal intention to terminate the contract. The breach of contract claim for notice pay also failed because there had been no dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found that the alleged unfavourable treatment under section 18 Equality Act 2010 did not take place: the respondent had not decided to refuse the claimant's return to work or refuse to discuss it. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found that the alleged less favourable treatment under section 13 Equality Act 2010 did not take place and that the claimant had not proved a prima facie case of discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract and therefore no constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The alternative case that the respondent directly dismissed the claimant under section 95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed; the tribunal found that the respondent had not terminated the employment contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found that the claimant had not been directly or constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
17 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Woods v WM Car Service (Peterborough) Ltd
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Tullett Prebon PLC v BGC Brokers
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Williams v The Governing Body of Alderman Davies Church In Wales Primary School
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sandle v Adecco Ltd
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.