Case 2600110/2017 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms H McDade, Solicitor (In-house) — 2017
- Case reference
- 2600110/2017
- Decision date
- 12 May 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on 3 May 2017 before Employment Judge Britton sitting alone. The claimant, Mrs D Goddard, was unrepresented and the respondent was Leicester City Council. The judge was dealing with strike-out and deposit issues, together with case management, in an unfair dismissal claim arising from the claimant's summary dismissal for gross misconduct on 6 October 2016. The dismissal allegation concerned the use of racist language, said to have been captured on a covert recording made by colleague Janet Haslam, which the claimant disputed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim had more than a little reasonable prospect of success, so it was not struck out and no deposit was ordered. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal amended the claim to add breach of contract / notice pay. No merits determination was made at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
- range of reasonable responses test
- Burchell test
- balance of probabilities
- fundamentally undermined trust and confidence
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.