Case 3203960/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Master v London Borough of Waltham Forest and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3203960/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Master
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded corrections to the names of the first and second respondents: London Borough of Waltham Forest and Governing Body of Gwyn Jones Primary School.
On the respondents' application, the Tribunal declined to dismiss or strike out the claimant's claim against the first respondent under Rule 37(1)(a) of schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The parties' representatives agreed that the claimant's claims against both respondents should be determined at a Final Hearing.
The claims were directed to proceed to a Final Hearing listed for 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 23 May 2024 before an Employment Judge and two members. Case Management Orders were to be issued separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a procedural decision on the respondents' application to dismiss or strike out the claim against the first respondent. It does not adjudicate the substantive unfair dismissal or race discrimination claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) of schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and 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.
- 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.