Case 8002411/2025 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002411/2025 Hearing at Edinburgh on and April 2026 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ms R McEwan v The Nail and Beauty Zone Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002411/2025
- Decision date
- 1 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002411/2025 Hearing at Edinburgh on and April 2026 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ms R McEwan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms R McEwan, was employed by The Nail and Beauty Zone Limited as a Senior Therapist from 28 June 2023 and later managed the Edinburgh Airport salon. The respondent decided in May 2025 to make the claimant and the Lothian Road manager redundant as part of wider cost reductions. The claimant was about 27 weeks pregnant when Ms Johnston telephoned her on 4 June 2025 to tell her she was being made redundant, with employment ending on 4 July 2025.
The section 18 Equality Act 2010 pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim did not succeed. The tribunal found that dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that the respondent knew the claimant was pregnant, but held that the treatment was not because of pregnancy or maternity leave. It accepted the respondent's evidence that redundancy was the principal reason for dismissal. The automatically unfair dismissal complaint under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 also failed because the tribunal found that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was not related to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that redundancy was a potentially fair reason, but that the respondent failed to consult with the claimant before deciding to dismiss her and presented the decision as already made on 4 June 2025. It also found that the self-employed therapist option was not suitable alternative employment and that the Peebles employed therapist role had not been offered before dismissal because the claimant did not receive the 2 June 2025 email. The complaint about not being offered the Rose Street manager role was not upheld because that role was already occupied and the wider selection-pool point had not been pleaded.
The respondent conceded that statutory maternity pay and a statutory redundancy payment were due. The tribunal awarded £7,613.22 for outstanding statutory maternity pay and £628.05 as a redundancy payment. For unfair dismissal, it found the claimant would have been made redundant following a fair procedure, but would likely have remained employed for four further weeks while consultation took place. It awarded £1,256.10 for four weeks' pay and £500 for loss of employment rights, giving £2,100 compensation for unfair dismissal. The total award was £9,997.37.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim dismissed. The tribunal found dismissal was unfavourable treatment, but held that the unfavourable treatment was not because of pregnancy or maternity leave; it stated the decision took place outwith the protected period and in any event the principal reason was redundancy. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed. The tribunal held the sole or principal reason for dismissal was not related to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 to 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 upheld. Redundancy was a potentially fair reason, but the dismissal was unfair because of the failure to consult before the decision and the failure to offer suitable alternative employment. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent conceded that statutory maternity pay was outstanding. The tribunal ordered payment of £7,613.22. | Upheld | — | £7,613 |
| Redundancy | The respondent conceded that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment because her employment ended after she had completed two years' service. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,997
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,100
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 94 to 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd
- Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 163 Employment Rights Act 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.