Case 1809857/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Topham v Harden Primary School (academy) — 2018
- Case reference
- 1809857/2018
- Decision date
- 10 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Topham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The Employment Judge recorded that the time for presenting a response had expired and that no valid response had been presented. On the information before the tribunal, Mrs J Topham's claims of unauthorised deduction from wages, unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and breach of contract were held to succeed against Harden Primary School (academy).
The judgment did not set out substantive liability reasoning beyond the Rule 21 basis. It stated that the remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be determined at a Remedy Hearing listed for 10 October 2018.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ruled to succeed on a Rule 21 basis; no remedy was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ruled to succeed on a Rule 21 basis; no remedy was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Ruled to succeed on a Rule 21 basis; no remedy was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Ruled to succeed on a Rule 21 basis; no remedy was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.