Claimant v Jaswant Tunday T/A Nunneley House Dental Practice
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the respondent's response as having no reasonable prospects of success and found the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under Section 99 ERA 1996 (pregnancy/maternity related dismissal) succeeded. The respondent did not appear to defend the claim.
The tribunal found pregnancy and maternity discrimination under Section 17 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The respondent's defence was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and they did not attend the hearing.
The claim of direct sex discrimination contrary to Section 13 EqA succeeded. The respondent's response was struck out and they failed to appear, leaving the claimant's allegations unchallenged.
The harassment claim under Section 26 EqA succeeded. The respondent's response was struck out for having no reasonable prospects and they did not attend to defend the claim.
The breach of contract claim in respect of notice pay succeeded. The respondent failed to defend the claim and their response was struck out.
The claim that the respondent failed to provide written terms and particulars of employment succeeded. This is a Section 1 ERA 1996 claim which succeeded with the respondent offering no defence.
Facts
Miss Scarfe brought claims against her former employer, a dental practice, alleging automatic unfair dismissal related to pregnancy/maternity, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, harassment, breach of contract for notice pay, and failure to provide written terms and conditions. The respondent failed to appear at the preliminary hearing.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the respondent's response as having no reasonable prospects of success. All of the claimant's claims succeeded. The respondent's failure to appear meant the claims were unchallenged. A remedy hearing was listed for 24 June 2025 to determine compensation.
Practical note
When a respondent fails to engage with pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims and does not appear at a preliminary hearing, the tribunal may strike out the response and find in favour of the claimant on all claims, with remedy to be determined separately.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600450/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister