Case 8000177/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member K Culloch Tribunal Member A Shanahan Ms Antonia Ogilvie v Represented by: Mr J Lawson, Solicitor Ms Kendra Mann — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000177/2023
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp Tribunal
- Venue
- Dundee
- Panel members
- K Culloch, A Shanahan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member K Culloch Tribunal Member A Shanahan Ms Antonia Ogilvie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing in Dundee on 20 November 2023, the tribunal struck out the respondent's response under Rule 37 after finding that no competent defence had been pled, a tribunal order had not been complied with, and the manner in which the proceedings were conducted was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. The respondent did not attend, and the tribunal also considered the case in the alternative under Rule 47. The claimant gave evidence, which the tribunal accepted as credible and reliable.
The claimant, Ms Antonia Ogilvie, had worked for Ms Kendra Mann, trading as Evora Contracts, from August 2022. The parties had agreed that she would be paid £350 gross per week, described in messages as £314.51 net, and payments at that level were made for a period before they stopped being made in full from around 9 January 2023. The claimant told the respondent on 31 October 2022 that she was pregnant. On 7 March 2023 the respondent sent a WhatsApp message terminating the contract with immediate effect, referring to the claimant's medical conditions and health. The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy-related illness and therefore a breach of section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
On remedy for the discrimination claim, the tribunal awarded £12,000 for injury to feelings, placing the case at the cusp of the lower and middle Vento bands, and £11,290.90 for financial loss. In assessing loss, it accepted that the claimant would have worked until about 11 June 2023 and then started maternity leave, and it made no deduction for Universal Credit. It added interest of £2,486.55, producing a total award of £25,777.45 for the Equality Act breach. Separately, the tribunal found that the claimant had suffered unauthorised deductions from wages because she had not been paid the agreed rate in January and February 2023, and it awarded £777.06 as quantified in the schedule of loss.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found that the dismissal on 7 March 2023 was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy-related illness and therefore a breach of section 18 Equality Act 2010. The award comprised £12,000 injury to feelings, £11,290.90 financial loss, and interest. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £25,777 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The parties had agreed pay of £350 gross per week, equivalent to £314.51 net. The tribunal found underpayments from January to February 2023 and awarded the sum quantified in the schedule of loss. | Upheld | — | £777 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,777
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £11,291
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- Rule 37 striking out
- Rule 47 absence
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council
- Bolch v Chipman
- Bennett v Southwark LBC
- Emuemokoro v Crome Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd
- Vento bands
- Abbey National plc v Chagger
- Ministry of Defence v Hunt
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.