Case 2303125/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Ross-Harris v Julie Crissico Stewart and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303125/2018
- Decision date
- 11 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss S Ross-Harris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Croydon hearing on 11 September 2019 before Employment Judge Wright, the claimant appeared in person, the first respondent did not attend, and the second respondent was represented by a solicitor. The written record records only procedural orders rather than a merits decision.
The second respondent, Brighton and Hove City Council, was dismissed from the proceedings in accordance with Rule 35 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The first respondent, Julie Crissico Stewart, had her ET3 rejected under Rule 18 because it was presented outside the time limit.
The written decision does not set out any substantive findings on the underlying wage or working time issues, and it records no remedy or monetary award. It also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment does not record a substantive determination of any underlying claim. It records only that the second respondent was dismissed from the proceedings under Rule 35 and that the first respondent's ET3 was rejected as out of time under Rule 18. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 35 ET Rules 2013
- Rule 18 ET Rules 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.