Case 6012536/2025 · Employment Tribunal
MR MAGIER (COUNSEL) FOR THE v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012536/2025
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms A Fine, Ms D Hebb
Parties
1 namedClaimant
MR MAGIER (COUNSEL) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Annabelle Burke de Frias, was employed by Colorfoto Limited as a Photography Supervisor from 22 September 2023 until her dismissal on 29 November 2024. She brought complaints of automatic unfair dismissal connected to pregnancy under s.99 ERA 1996 and the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, pregnancy and maternity discrimination under s.18 of the Equality Act 2010, detriment under s.47C ERA 1996 and Regulation 19 MAPLR 1999, and a failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996. The hearing was before Employment Judge Povey sitting with Ms A Fine and Ms D Hebb at Cardiff Magistrates' Court from 25 to 27 November 2025, with deliberations concluding on 5 December 2025.
The Tribunal found that complaints relating to acts before 29 November 2024 were brought out of time. In respect of the discrimination complaints, it was not just and equitable to extend time, and in respect of the detriment complaints, it was reasonably practicable for them to have been brought in time. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider those earlier allegations.
On the substantive complaints that remained, the Tribunal held that the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints were not made out, the pregnancy and maternity detriment complaints were not made out, and the complaint about the written statement of particulars of employment was not made out. All complaints were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaints under s.18 EqA 2010. Allegations that pre-29 November 2024 were brought out of time and the Tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis, so it had no jurisdiction over those. The remaining pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints were not made out and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Parental leave | Detriment complaints under s.47C ERA 1996 and Regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999. Pre-29 November 2024 allegations were out of time (reasonably practicable to bring in time), so no jurisdiction; the remaining detriment complaints were not made out and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996. The Tribunal found the complaint was not made out and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.99 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Regulation 10 MPLR 1999
- Regulation 20 MPLR 1999
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.47C ERA 1996
- Regulation 19 MAPLR 1999
- s.1 ERA 1996
- James W Cook and Co (Wivenhoe) Ltd v Tipper [1990] ICR 716, CA
- Del Monte Foods Ltd v Mundon [1980] ICR 694
- Ramdoolar v Bycity Ltd UKEAT/0236/04
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.