A London employment tribunal has ordered Hogan Lovells partner Sylvain Dhennin to pay more than £18,000 in compensation to his former nanny after she successfully claimed she was directly discriminated against and unfairly dismissed because she was pregnant.

London partner Dhennin, who heads Hogan Lovells' high yield practice in Europe, was ordered to pay £18,366.62 damages to the claimant for, among other things, injury to feelings, loss of earnings and loss of maternity pay, after the tribunal described his evidence as "untrue", "confusing", "misleading" and "without foundation".

In January 2017, Dhennin and his wife employed the claimant as a nanny-housekeeper. Her duties primarily revolved around caring for the couple's two children. The judgment indicates the claimant "enjoyed a happy working relationship with the couple".

That September, the claimant told Dhennin that she was pregnant, and the tribunal judgment details how, the previous week, there had been a discussion between his wife and the claimant about her continuing role as a housekeeper once the family moved into a new house.

However, "without warning" Dhennin subsequently handed the claimant a letter of termination confirming her dismissal, arguing her services were no longer required as both children were entering full-time nursery.

The tribunal concluded that both Dhennin's dismissal letter and his response to the claimant's claim form failed on two fronts. First, that it did not acknowledge that both he and his wife knew, on dismissing the claimant, that she was pregnant; and secondly, that Dhennin had made "a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact of the knowledge of the pregnancy".

Dhennin had argued that the claimant was told, before she was dismissed, that "she was at risk of redundancy". However, the tribunal found his evidence "confused and confusing", concluding his statement was "untrue". It also found that Dhennin's evidence as to his decision to dismiss the claimant coming prior to his knowledge of her pregnancy was "misleading".

The tribunal concluded that the claimant was dismissed because she was pregnant, and therefore the dismissal was automatically unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Hogan Lovells and Dhennin declined to comment.