Case 6001050/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. L Bailey v Burmantofts Community Projects — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001050/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morgan KC
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. L Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs L Bailey’s claims against Burmantofts Community Projects were heard at Leeds on 20 and 21 February 2024 before Employment Judge E P Morgan KC. The written judgment records that the tribunal dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the complaint concerning accrued unpaid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended).
The written record does not set out the tribunal’s factual findings or reasoning in detail. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. On the material available in the written judgment, the formal outcome is that all three complaints were found not well founded and were dismissed, with no monetary award recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint in relation to accrued unpaid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended)
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.