Case 2502104/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Leonard v Durham County Council (First Respondent) Etherley Land Primary School (Second Respondent) Russell Turner — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502104/2019
- Decision date
- 14 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Representation
- Venue
- Teesside Justice Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Leonard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis short judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the claimant's claims. The tribunal recorded that Miss S Leonard accepted Etherley Land Primary School was not her employer in this case.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the second respondent as a party to the proceedings under Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment does not record any remedy, liability finding, or substantive outcome on the underlying claims against the remaining respondents.
The only respondents named in the heading were Durham County Council, Etherley Land Primary School, and Russell Turner. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge Shore on 14 January 2020 at Teesside Justice Centre.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The only determination in this judgment was procedural: the claimant accepted that Etherley Land Primary School was not her employer, and the second respondent was dismissed as a party under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.