Case 3204648/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Balfourth v Governing Body of Manorfield Primary School — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204648/2022
- Decision date
- 21 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Balfourth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Reid dismissed all three claims brought by Ms C Balfourth against the Governing Body of Manorfield Primary School: unfair dismissal, a statutory redundancy payment, and notice pay. The judgment records that the reason for dismissal was that the claimant had not in fact been dismissed by the respondent when she presented her claim form on 10 August 2022.
The tribunal found that the confusion about the claimant's contract was resolved in her favour and that her employment continued. On that basis, the factual premise needed for the unfair dismissal and redundancy claims was absent, and the notice pay claim also fell away. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not been dismissed by the respondent when she presented her claim form on 10 August 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The statutory redundancy payment claim was dismissed for the same reason: at the time the claim was presented, the claimant had not been dismissed and the confusion about her contract had been resolved in her favour, with her employment continuing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim for notice pay, but does not label it as a specific legal cause of action; that claim was dismissed because the claimant had not been dismissed and her employment continued. | 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.