Case 2500948/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Clayton v Nicholas Postgate Catholic Academy Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500948/2024
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Clayton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Newcastle by CVP on 4 November 2024 before Employment Judge Martin, dealt with claims brought by Ms M Clayton against Nicholas Postgate Catholic Academy Trust. The judgment records that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and harassment related to disability.
Both complaints were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The judgment does not set out any substantive findings on liability, remedy, or any monetary award, and it states that oral reasons were given at the hearing. The parties were informed that written reasons could be requested within fourteen days of the date the judgment was sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated it did not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Described in the judgment as harassment related to disability; the tribunal stated it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint and dismissed it. | Dismissed | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.