Case 6016447/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Muti v Ocean Fish (Retail) Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016447/2024
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Representation
- Venue
- Bodmin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Muti
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Volkmer at Bodmin on 8 December 2025 to determine the Claimant's application to strike out the Response and the Respondent's application for a deposit order. The Claimant's strike out application was dismissed. The Respondent's deposit order application was granted only in relation to the allegation that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant for time off to attend midwife appointments on 12, 14 and 28 June 2024, which the Judge found had little reasonable prospect of success; the remaining parts of the deposit order application were dismissed.
That allegation has been pleaded under three heads of claim: pregnancy and maternity discrimination, harassment related to sex, and unlawful deduction from wages. The Judge concluded, on the basis of clocking-in records and matching payslips, that there was little reasonable prospect the Claimant would establish she was not paid for the appointments on those dates. Given the Claimant's extremely limited financial means (£1,000 per month in benefits, £800 rent), the deposit was set at £1 per allegation, so £3 in total if the Claimant wished to pursue the allegation under all three heads.
The Judge declined to make deposit orders on time-limit grounds or in relation to the wider claims, finding that issues such as the effective date of termination, whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and whether there was conduct extending over a period could not be determined without testing the evidence. The substantive claims accordingly proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. Deposit order of £1 made in respect of the allegation that the Respondent failed to pay for time off to attend midwife appointments on 12, 14 and 28 June 2024 (pleaded as pregnancy/maternity discrimination). Remaining parts of the discrimination claim proceed; no substantive determination. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing only. Deposit order of £1 made in respect of the midwife appointment allegation pleaded as harassment related to sex. Other pleaded acts of harassment proceed; no substantive determination. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing only. Deposit order of £1 made in respect of the midwife appointment allegation pleaded as unlawful deduction from wages. Remaining wages claim (including unpaid breaks) proceeds; no substantive determination. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s99 ERA 1996 (pregnancy-related). Respondent's deposit order application in relation to this claim was dismissed; claim proceeds to final hearing. No substantive determination at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal (notice pay) claim. Respondent's deposit order application in relation to this claim was dismissed; claim proceeds to final hearing. No substantive determination at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s123(2) Equality Act 2010
- s18 Equality Act 2010
- s26 Equality Act 2010
- s99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.