Case 2301849/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Kate Mackey v The Governing Body of Eglinton Primary School and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301849/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Kate Mackey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the correct employer was the Royal Borough of Greenwich and removed The Governing Body of Eglinton Primary School as a party to the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages complaint was in time and well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant GBP 5,512.59, subject to appropriate deductions for pension, tax and national insurance.
The claimant's discrimination complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal. The order does not provide written reasons or further findings on those complaints.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The order states the unlawful deduction of wages complaint was in time and well-founded, with the award subject to appropriate deductions for pension, tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £5,513 |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's discrimination complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal, without separately listing each discrimination complaint in the order. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's discrimination complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal, without separately listing each discrimination complaint in the order. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,513
- 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.