Case 2600180/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms H Sandhu (2600180/2022) (2) Mrs K Patel (2600181/2022) (3) Ms A Burton (2600182/2022) (4) Mrs T Bento-Filipe (2600183/2022) (5) Mrs M Malhi (2600184/2022) v Pear Tree Infant School and Walbrook Nursery PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600180/2022
- Decision date
- 10 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cansick Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms H Sandhu (2600180/2022) (2) Mrs K Patel (2600181/2022) (3) Ms A Burton (2600182/2022) (4) Mrs T Bento-Filipe (2600183/2022) (5) Mrs M Malhi (2600184/2022)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 10 August 2022 before Employment Judge Cansick, the respondent applied to strike out the complaints brought by Ms H Sandhu, Mrs K Patel, Ms A Burton, Mrs T Bento-Filipe and Mrs M Malhi against Pear Tree Infant School and Walbrook Nursery. The tribunal refused the respondent's application. No substantive liability findings were made in this judgment, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made at the hearing or in writing within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application to strike out the claimants' complaints was refused at the preliminary hearing. The judgment does not identify the substantive causes of action. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.