Case 6009619/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Satchell v APX Estate Agents Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009619/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Satchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Satchell was dismissed on 30 April 2024 after three complete years of service. On 28 May 2024, the Respondent emailed her a P45 dated 30 April. The Tribunal accepted her account, supported by email and WhatsApp evidence, that the dismissal came without prior consultation or discussion.
The wrongful dismissal complaint succeeded. The Tribunal accepted Ms Satchell's unchallenged evidence that she was entitled to two months' notice and found from the WhatsApp messages that she had received no notice. It awarded £1,234.40, representing two months' gross wages.
The unfair dismissal complaint, defined under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as dismissal for a reason relating to pregnancy, childbirth and maternity, also succeeded. The Tribunal accepted that Ms Satchell was the only person dismissed and that there had been no consultation or discussion. It awarded a £427.29 basic award, based on her age, service and weekly wage of £142.43, together with the compensatory award recorded in the operative judgment as £2,209.17. The reasons allowed 12 weeks' lost earnings and £500 for loss of accrued statutory rights.
The Tribunal further upheld the section 18 Equality Act 2010 complaint concerning the manner in which Ms Satchell was told of her dismissal while on maternity leave. It found that she was treated unfavourably because she was on maternity leave when she was notified through the emailed P45. In assessing injury to feelings, the Tribunal considered the effect of that notification on her at the time and its continuing effect more than two years later.
The injury to feelings award was placed towards the top of the lower Vento band and set at £9,000. Interest of £1,666.67 was added at 8% per annum from 28 May 2024 to the hearing, producing £10,666.67 for the discrimination complaint. The total compensation ordered was £14,537.53.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The award represented two months' gross wages in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,234 |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was defined under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as dismissal for a reason relating to pregnancy, childbirth and maternity. The operative judgment records a £2,209.17 compensatory award, while paragraph 68 calculates it as £2,209.16; the operative figures are used here. | Upheld | — | £2,636 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The upheld treatment was the manner in which the Claimant was notified of her dismissal while on maternity leave, namely by her P45 being emailed to her. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £10,667 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,538
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £427
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,209
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 20 Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
- decision-maker motivation under Kong v Gulf International Bank UK Ltd
- employer motivation as a question of fact under Kuzel v Roche Products Limited
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996: just and equitable compensation and mitigation
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- injury to feelings assessed by the effect on the claimant under Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham
- Vento bands and the Seventh Addendum to the Presidential Guidance
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 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.