Case 3305334/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Edna Johnson v Peterborough City Council and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305334/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Edna Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 17 April 2024, Employment Judge Hutchings sat alone at Cambridge Employment Tribunal. The judgment states that Councillor Wayne Fitzgerald, the second respondent, was removed from the proceedings under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal recorded that the allegations made against the second respondent were not within its jurisdiction and/or were evidential, and that he had been wrongly included as a party. The order therefore removed the second respondent from the case in the interests of justice.
The judgment also states that all complaints against Peterborough City Council, the first respondent, would continue to a final hearing. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment was an interlocutory decision removing the second respondent from the proceedings under rule 34 because the allegations against that respondent were said to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and/or evidential, and because the respondent had been wrongly included as a party. No substantive claim outcome against either respondent was determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 34 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.
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.