Case 1807252/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Y Hameed v The Borough Council of Calderdale — 2023
- Case reference
- 1807252/2022
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. Y Hameed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Leeds on 2 October 2023 before Employment Judge Shepherd, the claimant did not appear, Mr Echendu did not appear, and the respondent was represented by Mr Smith, counsel. The written judgment records a single order made in the case: Mr Echendu, described as the claimant's former legal representative, was ordered to pay the respondent's wasted costs, including the costs of the day, in the total sum of £4,829 inclusive of VAT.
The extracted written reasons do not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning for making the wasted costs order. They state that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. On the material available in the extracted text, no substantive employment claim outcome, legal test, or split of the award beyond the single wasted costs figure is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records only a wasted costs order against Mr Echendu, the claimant's former legal representative. It does not set out any substantive claim outcome in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,829
- across all upheld claims
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.