Case 2600198/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Baxter Ms M Boston v Staffordshire County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600198/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Baxter Ms M Boston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims before the tribunal were unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and unauthorised deductions from wages. The hearing took place at Nottingham on 6, 7 and 8 January 2025 before Employment Judge M Butler sitting alone.
The tribunal held that each of the claims was not well-founded and dismissed them. The written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that no further written reasons would be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed. Oral reasons were given, with no written reasons included in the supplied judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the breach of contract claim was not well-founded and dismissed. Oral reasons were given, with no written reasons included in the supplied judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment uses the phrase unauthorised deductions from wages and states the claim was not well-founded and dismissed. Oral reasons were given, with no written reasons included in the supplied judgment. | 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.