Case 1801204/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Lewucha v Leeds City Council and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1801204/2024
- Decision date
- 8 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms K Lewucha
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a private video hearing at Hull before Employment Judge Miller concerning the claimant's claims against the second respondent, Randstad Solutions Ltd. The first respondent, Leeds City Council, attended through a solicitor but did not formally take part in the hearing.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claims against the second respondent had more than no reasonable prospects of success, so they were not struck out. It also held that the claimant's email dated 8 February 2024 did not withdraw those claims, and therefore the claims against the second respondent were not dismissed.
No remedy was awarded in this judgment. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal decided that the claimant's claims against the second respondent had more than no reasonable prospects of success and were not struck out. It also decided that the claimant had not withdrawn her claims against the second respondent and they were not dismissed. The judgment text does not identify the substantive claim type. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospects of success
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.