Case 2301105/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Callaghan - Counsel For the v Mr Cameron – Case Worker — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301105/2022
- Decision date
- 22 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Callaghan - Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the claim should proceed against Wandsworth Borough Council or the Governing Body of Garratt Park School. The Claimant had initially brought proceedings against Wandsworth Borough Council, but the Tribunal recorded that the school, rather than the local authority, was legally responsible for staff and staffing matters under the relevant education order.
The Tribunal found it understandable that the Claimant had named Wandsworth Borough Council because his contract of employment and likely payslips identified it as employer. Applying its case management powers, including Rule 34 and amendment principles, the Tribunal concluded that the mistake was technical and that it was in the interests of justice to add the Governing Body of Garratt Park School as respondent.
The Tribunal added the Governing Body of Garratt Park School as respondent and dismissed Wandsworth Borough Council as respondent. It also dismissed the separate 2023 claim as a duplicate of the 2022 claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a preliminary hearing decision about substitution/removal of respondents and dismissal of a duplicate 2023 claim; it does not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment is a preliminary hearing decision about substitution/removal of respondents and dismissal of a duplicate 2023 claim; it does not determine the race discrimination claim on its merits. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 29 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore 1996 ICR 836 EAT
- balance of hardship
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership 2021 ICR 535 EAT
- Employment Tribunals Act 1996 section 18A
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.