Case 8000075/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Gaikniece v (in person) CCHG Limited (trading as VPZ) — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000075/2022
- Decision date
- 26 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Cowen
- Venue
- Dundee tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Gaikniece
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Dundee on 26 April 2023 before Employment Judge S Cowen, and the respondent did not attend. For the reasons given in the oral judgment, Ms S Gaikniece's claims under s.18 Equality Act 2010 for pregnancy discrimination, s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996, and breach of contract were all successful.
The judgment ordered CCHG Limited, trading as VPZ, to pay a total of £17,583.06. The award was broken down as a compensatory award of £5,654.16, future loss of earnings of £4,112.55, loss of statutory rights of £500, notice pay of £316.35, and injury to feelings of £7,000. The judgment also records that no recoupment applies to the compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Successful under s.18 Equality Act 2010; the judgment does not separately apportion the global award by claim. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim, mapped here to unfair_dismissal; the judgment does not separately apportion the global award by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Successful breach of contract claim; the judgment does not separately apportion the global award by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,583
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,654
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.