Case 2411492/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Horton v Castle Park Arts Centre — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411492/2023
- Decision date
- 13 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Horton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester on 3, 4, 5 and 6 December 2024 before Employment Judge K M Ross. The claimant, Ms K Horton, represented herself and the respondent, Castle Park Arts Centre, was represented by counsel.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and failed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's full reasons, stating instead that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim did not proceed to determination on the merits. It was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, with her consent. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the claim under sections 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and failed. The written record does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, with her consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.