Case 1800801/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person assisted by Mr L Shaw (husband) & Mr S Wood (friend) v Ms S Ross, Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800801/2019
- Decision date
- 4 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person assisted by Mr L Shaw (husband) & Mr S Wood (friend)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short procedural judgment heard at Sheffield on 25 September 2019 before Employment Judge Brain. The claimant, Mrs J A Shaw, appeared in person with assistance from Mr L Shaw and Mr S Wood. The respondents were represented by Ms S Ross, Solicitor.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of the underlying employment claims. Instead, it ordered that the first respondent, the Governing Body of Stannington Infant School, be dismissed from the proceedings because it no longer had any legal interest in them.
The effect of the judgment was that the claimant's case continued only against Sheffield City Council, which became the sole respondent. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment did not adjudicate any substantive employment claim. It ordered that the first respondent be dismissed from the proceedings because it no longer had any legal interest in them, and that the claim continue against the second respondent as sole respondent. | 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.