Case 2411495/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Atherton v Lancashire County Council HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411495/2023
- Decision date
- 16 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Atherton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 7 October 2024 in Manchester, before Employment Judge Slater, the tribunal dealt with jurisdictional questions arising from the list of issues attached to the preliminary hearing record of 1 May 2024. The written judgment records that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider complaints 2.1.1 to 2.1.7 and 2.1.12 to 2.1.16.
The tribunal also recorded that it did have jurisdiction to consider complaints 2.1.8 to 2.1.11. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Jurisdictional decision only. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider complaints 2.1.1 to 2.1.7 and 2.1.12 to 2.1.16 in the list of issues annexed to the preliminary hearing record dated 1 May 2024, but that it did have jurisdiction to consider complaints 2.1.8 to 2.1.11. | Other | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.