Case 6025046/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Soobratty v Board of Governors of Madani Schools Federation and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6025046/2025
- Decision date
- 12 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michael Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms R Soobratty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 10 August 2026, the tribunal dismissed Ms R Soobratty's claims against Leicester City Council. Sections 36(1) and 36(2) of the Education Act 2002 identified the governing body as her employer. The tribunal rejected her argument that the council's involvement in HR and salary matters showed an employment relationship. The council did not instruct her on how to carry out her duties. She was responsible to the Board of Governors of Madani Schools Federation and looked to it for holidays and other time off. The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to depart from the statutory identification of her employer in the circumstances of this case.
Ms Soobratty sought 42 further amendments to her existing claims. Applying the Selkent principles, the tribunal assessed the balance of hardship between her and the remaining respondent. Some proposed amendments introduced new claims or factual scenarios; most lacked detail about when events happened, who was involved and what was said or done. The tribunal noted that the claim had been presented in 2025, autumn 2026 was approaching and case management orders were not yet in place. It said the number of amendments was not itself a reason for refusal. Her explanation that her mental health had prevented her from providing the additional detail earlier did not assist many of the applications.
The tribunal refused the amendments grouped as new claims or too vague to incorporate into the original claims. It allowed amendment 14.3.1 and the amendments marked purple in the working draft list of issues, which the remaining respondent did not oppose. Amendments 3.1.22, 3.1.23 and 3.1.24 were refused as out of time. Amendments 4.1.35 to 4.1.40 and 14.1.84 to 14.1.93 were refused because they postdated the ET1 and were out of time. No monetary award was recorded. Leicester City Council confirmed that it would not seek costs against Ms Soobratty following dismissal of the claims against it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This entry records the collective dismissal of the claims against Leicester City Council, the second respondent. The judgment does not identify the underlying claim types. It separately grants or refuses applications to amend the claims against the first respondent, without deciding their substantive merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Education Act 2002, sections 36(1) and 36(2)
- Usual tests for employment status
- Selkent principles and balance of hardship
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.