Case 1602855/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Respondents: Mrs I De Leon (1) Care Ethic Ltd (2) Powys County Council v Mrs I De Leon and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602855/2023
- Decision date
- 24 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Respondents: Mrs I De Leon (1) Care Ethic Ltd (2) Powys County Council
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge C Sharp, sitting alone at Cardiff, found that Mrs I De Leon was a worker of the First Respondent, Care Ethic Ltd. On that basis, the tribunal held that she did not have standing to bring a claim of unfair dismissal.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment also recorded that the claimant could proceed with Equality Act 2010 discrimination claims against Care Ethic Ltd and Powys County Council, but it did not determine those claims or identify the protected characteristic involved.
No remedy award or monetary figure was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claimant was a worker of the First Respondent and therefore did not have standing to bring unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the claimant can proceed with Equality Act 2010 discrimination claims against the First and Second Respondents, but it does not identify the protected characteristic or determine those claims. | Other | — | — |
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.