Case 1804627/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms V Chalk v Green Hammerton Church of England Primary School — 2026
- Case reference
- 1804627/2024
- Decision date
- 9 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms V Chalk
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a supply teacher engaged through a recruitment agency, brought complaints under regulations 5, 13 and 17 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 against the respondent school. Employment Judge Shepherd, sitting alone at Leeds, heard evidence from the claimant and the headteacher and considered a bundle of documents running to 545 pages.
On regulation 5, the tribunal found the claimant had not completed the 12-week qualifying period under regulation 7: there was an eight-week break between her first assignment ending on 21 July 2023 and her return on 21 September 2023, and only six weeks of that break counted as a temporary cessation of the hirer's requirement. The tribunal was also not satisfied that the claimant was carrying out the same or broadly similar role to that of a permanent teacher in assignments 2, 3 and 4, noting she did not have full class responsibilities such as planning, long-term assessment, report writing and participation in parents' evenings and staff meetings.
On regulation 13, the tribunal accepted the headteacher's evidence that vacancies were advertised on an internal school noticeboard and that the claimant had the same access to vacancy information as permanent staff. On regulation 17, the tribunal found the claimant had not requested a written statement under regulation 16 or alleged a breach of the Regulations before the alleged detriment on 22 January 2024, and that the respondent had not in fact terminated the assignment. All complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | Regulation 5 AWR claim. The tribunal found the claimant had not completed the 12-week qualifying period under Regulation 7 (an eight-week break occurred between assignments, only six weeks of which counted as a temporary cessation), and was not satisfied she was performing the same or broadly similar role to a permanent teacher in assignments 2, 3 and 4. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Regulation 13 AWR claim regarding the opportunity to find permanent employment. The tribunal accepted the headteacher's evidence that the teaching role was advertised internally on the school noticeboard and the claimant had the same information on vacancies as permanent staff. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Regulation 17 AWR detriment claim. The tribunal found the claimant did not allege a breach of the Agency Workers Regulations or request a written statement under Regulation 16, and that the respondent did not terminate the assignment; the claimant had not established a detriment under regulation 17. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Regulation 5 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 7 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 7(8) of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 11(2) of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 13 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 16 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 17 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010
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.