Case 1801434/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Butters (First Claimant) Mr S Halifax (Second Claimant) Mr A Smith (Third Claimant) v Leeds City Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 1801434/2024
- Decision date
- 27 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Butters (First Claimant) Mr S Halifax (Second Claimant) Mr A Smith (Third Claimant)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the first claimant was the only claimant who specified grounds in the claim form and in a letter delivered before the hearing. She said the matter related to treatment towards the end of her employment and maintained that it was not safe to do her job. The respondent had a resignation letter dated 17 October 2023 giving two weeks' notice from 16 October 2023 and giving no reasons for resignation. The Tribunal explained the nature of constructive dismissal and what was required to prove it.
The Tribunal also noted that the first claimant's claim was presented out of time. Her effective date of termination was 27 October 2023, she began early conciliation on 15 February 2024, received her certificate on 19 February 2024, and presented the claim on 28 February 2024. The first claimant said she had sought help from her union and later from the job centre, where she was advised to contact ACAS, but the Tribunal recorded that she did not act for approximately one month after that visit.
For the second and third claimants, the Tribunal found that their claims were separate from the first claimant's claim and were not part of the same dispute. They therefore could not rely on the early conciliation exemption for multiple claimants on the same claim form. Because they had not entered early conciliation and had given no facts or indication of what their claims might be, the Tribunal considered it just to strike out their claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The first claimant described treatment towards the end of employment and said it was not safe to do her job. The Tribunal treated the resignation context as requiring consideration of constructive dismissal and struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The second and third claimants said their claims were separate from the first claimant's claim, had not entered early conciliation, and gave no facts or indication of what their claims might be. The Tribunal struck out their claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemption and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014
- Rule 9 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- Rule 6 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.