Case 2301574/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M.C. Otero Santiago v London Borough of Croydon and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301574/2023
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCann Signed
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M.C. Otero Santiago
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal formally consolidated Ms Otero Santiago’s case with the related claims of Ms Sullivan and Ms Seddon, and amended the respondent names so that the first respondent was London Borough of Croydon and the second respondent was Management Committee of Saffron Valley Collegiate. It also recorded that Jennifer Adamson had been wrongly named as a respondent and dismissed all claims against her in the consolidated proceedings.
As to Ms Otero Santiago’s claims in case numbers 2301574/2023 and 2301578/2023, the judgment states that the claims against the first and second respondents had been withdrawn by the claimant. They were therefore dismissed under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The extracted text contains no merits findings and records no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claimant withdrew the claim and that it was dismissed under rule 52; the extracted text does not contain any merits finding or monetary award. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the claimant withdrew the claim and that it was dismissed under rule 52; the extracted text does not contain any merits finding or monetary award. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.
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.