Case 1805944/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Watson v Beverley Town Council HELD in Sheffield by CVP — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805944/2022
- Decision date
- 18 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Watson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 12 May 2023 held in Sheffield by CVP, Employment Judge Brain considered the respondent's applications to strike out and, alternatively, to order a deposit in relation to the complaints identified in the list of issues. The written record states that the tribunal heard from counsel and that oral reasons were given, with written reasons to follow only if requested within 14 days.
The tribunal refused to strike out or require a deposit for the complaints identified in paragraphs 7.1.1 to 7.1.5 and 8.1.3 to 8.1.4. It held that those complaints could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success, and it also refused the deposit application on the basis that they could not be said to have little reasonable prospect of success.
By contrast, the complaints identified in paragraph 6 and in paragraphs 7.1.6, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.5 and 8.1.6 were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaints identified in paragraphs 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.4, 7.1.5, 8.1.3 and 8.1.4 of the list of issues. The tribunal refused the respondent's applications to strike out these complaints and to require a deposit. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Complaint identified in paragraph 6 of the list of issues. It was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaints identified in paragraphs 7.1.6, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.5 and 8.1.6 of the list of issues. They were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect 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.