Case 2600781/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Roe v Church Hill Church of England Junior School — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600781/2018
- Decision date
- 28 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Roe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone at Leicester on 7 February 2019. The claimant, Mrs D Roe, appeared in person with her spouse and the respondent was represented by Ms K Smith, solicitor. The judgment records that the disability discrimination complaint was struck out.
The unfair dismissal complaint was treated differently. The tribunal decided that it was not struck out and that no deposit order should be made. The claim was therefore allowed to proceed to a final hearing listed for 3, 4 and 5 June 2019. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint struck out at the hearing; the judgment records that written reasons would not be provided because reasons were given orally. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was not struck out and no deposit order was made. It was listed to proceed to a final hearing on 3, 4 and 5 June 2019. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.