Case 3323058/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Elizabeth Digby v St Faith’s and 4 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323058/2021
- Decision date
- 10 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Miss Elizabeth Digby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 10 October 2022 before Judge Brian Doyle sitting alone, the tribunal found that for the purposes of the claimant's claim the employer was the 2nd respondent, The Leys and St Faith's Schools Foundation. On that basis, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents were removed from the proceedings, or alternatively the claim against them was dismissed or struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The title of the proceedings was to be amended accordingly, and the claim was to continue only against the 2nd respondent.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal or working time claims at this hearing. It recorded agreed case management directions: the final hearing remained listed for 10 days between 9 and 20 October 2023, the existing case management orders and timetable were suspended, and a Judicial Mediation was re-listed for 23 November 2022. The claimant was directed to provide an updated Schedule of Loss and both parties were to exchange short position statements by 16 November 2022. The claimant's application for written reasons for the judgment was granted.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | At this preliminary hearing the tribunal did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal or working time claims. It found that the 2nd respondent was the claimant's employer and ordered that the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents be removed from the proceedings, or alternatively that the claim against them be dismissed or struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | 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.
- 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.