Case 6004903/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. LAURA CASHMORE v Mr. VAN LE and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6004903/2025
- Decision date
- 6 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms. LAURA CASHMORE
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents failed to enter any response within the time specified in Rule 17(1). The Tribunal therefore proceeded under Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 and determined the aspects of the claim it considered could be decided on the available material.
The Tribunal found that the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal was well founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of being pregnant. It also found that the complaint of direct maternity discrimination was well founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal was unable to determine the appropriate remedy on the available material. Remedy and any remaining claims were left to be determined at a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal determined under Rule 22(2) that the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal was well founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of being pregnant. Remedy was reserved to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The Tribunal stated that the complaint of direct maternity discrimination was well founded and succeeds. Remedy was reserved to a further hearing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 17(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 22(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.