Case 2403581/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Bethune v Estée Lauder Cosmetics Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403581/2024
- Decision date
- 24 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Bethune
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester hearing on 17 December 2024, Employment Judge Eeley sitting alone struck out the claimant's claims against the second respondent under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a). The tribunal found that the second respondent was not the claimant's employer, so the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, and the second respondent was dismissed from the proceedings.
The second respondent's costs application was refused. The written record also states that a costs application under Rule 76(1)(a) was upheld and that the claimant was ordered to pay costs summarily assessed at £600 inclusive of VAT by 30 May 2025, although the wording of the order is internally inconsistent as to which respondent was the beneficiary of that order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written record does not identify the substantive claim labels; it states only that the claimant's claims against the second respondent were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the second respondent was not the claimant's employer. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £600
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- ET Rule 37(1)(a)
- ET Rule 76(1)(a)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.